Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 97-03; Join Hands Save A Life Youth Center; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (5)Citv of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Department CITY OF CARLSBAD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING JOIN HANDS YOUTH FACILITY NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Design Review Board of the City of Carisbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carisbad Village Drive, Carisbad, California at 6:00 p.m. on Monday, November 24, 1997 to consider approval, with a variance for rear setback which exceeds the maximum range, of a Major Redevelopment Permit (97-03) to allow the construction of a new 9587 square foot youth facility on property located on the west side of Roosevelt Street (mid-block) between Pine and Walnut in Village Land Use District 5, more particulariy described as: Lots 27, 28 and 29, in Block 31, in the Town of Carlsbad, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to the map thereof No. 535, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, May 2, 1888. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after November 20, 1997. If you have any questions or would like a copy of the staff report for the project, please contact Debbie Fountain in the Housing and Redevelopment Department at (619) 434-2935. As a result of environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carisbad, the Planning Director issued a Negative Declaration for the subject project on September 19, 1997. The Design Review Board will consider a recommendation for approval of the Negative Declaration on November 24, 1997. If you challenge the Major Redevelopment Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carisbad at or prior to the public hearing. Case File: RP 97-03 Case Name: Join Hands Youth Facility DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (For Site Map, See Reverse Side of this Notice) 2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (619) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (619) 720-2037 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE I- LLI LU H (/) LU I- < I- LU UJ Q: I- (/) UJ > H UJ UJ a: H CO UJ > UJ CO o O C£l OAK AVENUE UJ UJ 01 h- co 2: o CO Q < PINE STREET P 3 roject bite parcels N W t s CITY OF CARLSBAD WALNUT AVENUE JOIN HANDS YOUTH FACILITY RP 97-03 Citv of Carlsbad Housing & Redevelopment Department CITY OF CARLSBAD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING JOIN HANDS YOUTH FACILITY NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Design Review Board of the City of Carisbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carisbad Village Drive, Carisbad, California at 6:00 p.m. on Monday, January 26, 1998 to consider approval of a Major Redevelopment Permit (97-03) to allow the construction of a new 9587 square foot youth facility. The requested permit includes requests for the following variances: 1) for rear setbacks which exceed the maximum range; 2) a portion of the front and the side setbacks to be reduced to zero feet, which are below the minimum requirement of 5 feet; and 3) a gym roof which does not provide for the required 4:1 2 roof pitch. The project is proposed for property located on the west side of Roosevelt Street (mid-block) between Pine and Walnut in Village Land Use District 5, more particulariy described as: Lots 27, 28 and 29, in Block 31, in the Town of Carlsbad, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to the map thereof No. 535, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, May 2, 1888. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after January 21, 1998. If you have any questions or would like a copy of the staff report for the project, please contact Debbie Fountain in the Housing and Redevelopment Department at (619) 434-2935. As a result of environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carisbad, the Planning Director issued a Negative Declaration for the subject project on September 19, 1997. The Design Review Board will consider a recommendation for approval of the Negative Declaration on January 26, 1998. If you challenge the Major Redevelopment Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing. Case File: RP 97-03 Case Name: Join Hands Youth Facility DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (For Site Map, See Reverse Side of this Notice) 2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (619) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (619) 720-2037 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE I- UJ UJ h-co UJ < CO I- UJ UJ a: CO 0^ UJ —I >• h- UJ UJ 01 h-co H _l UJ > UJ CO o o 01 OAK AVENUE UJ UJ 01 H CO z o CO Q < PINE STREET •••••••••• P 3 reject bite parcels N w t s CITY OF CARLSBAD WALNUT AVENUE JOIN HANDS YOUTH FACILITY RP 97-03 PROOF OF PUBLICAT^^ (2010 & 2011 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego I am a citizen ofthe United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above- entitled matter I am the principal clerk ofthe printer of North County Times formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudged newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, under the dates of June 30, 1989 (Blade-Citizen) and June 21, 1974 (Times- Advocate) case number 171349 (Blade-Citizen) and case number 172171 (The Times-Advocate) forthe cities of Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Solana Beach and the North County Judicial District; that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: January 16, 1998 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. San Marcos Dated at California, this of Jan. 1998 16th .day Signature NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising This space is for^ County Clerk's Filing Stamp Proof of Publication of Public Notice CITY OF CARLSBAD NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARING JOIN HANDS YOUTH FACIUTY „ , , NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Design Review Board of the City of Carisbad wili hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carfsbad, California at 6:00 p.m. on Monday, January 26, 1998 to consider ap-proval of a Major Redevelopment Permit (97-03) to allow the construction ofa new 9587 square foot youth facility. The re-quested permit Includes requests for the following variances: 1) for rear setbacks vA\\dh exceed the maximum range; 2) a portion of the front and the side setbacks to be reduced to ze-ro feet, which are below the minimum requirement of 5 feet; and 3) a gym roof which does not provide for the required 4^12 roof pitch The project is proposed for property located on the west side of Roosevelt Street (mid-block) between Pine and Walnut in Village Land Use District 5, more particularly de-scribed ds* Lots 27,28 and 29, in Block 31, In the Town of Carlsbad, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego. State of Calrfomia. ac-corcling to the map thereof No. 535, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, May 2.1888. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the puWto hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after January 21, 1998. If you have any questions or wouW like a copy of the staff report for the oroiect please contact Debbie Fountain in the Housing and Redevelopment Department at (619) 434-2935 As a result of environmental review under the California Envi-ronmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Prt^ec-1==- -——- —- - ' 1 tion Ordinance of the 1 - City of Carlsbad, the , ^ - — Planning Director issued j I a Negative Declaration ] | - J : I for the subject project on 1 — - _ • September 19,1997. The „ ; - i —| Design Review Board will ; - _ _ ^ s consider a recommendation ] ^ r 1 7 5 j for approval of the 1 1 * Negative Declaration on January 2&, 1998. If you challenge the Mator Redevelopment Perrt* Tti , court, you may be limted f ^MV-"^- I y 1 to raisfng only those tapuaa i —^-^^^ . <»- > you or swneone else rariaap .. „ at the public hearing dwe^M in this notice or in wntten corre-spondence delh^ered to the City of Cartsbad at or pnor to the public hearing. Case File: RP9703 Caee Name: Join Hands Youth Fadll^ DESIGN fiVIEW BOARD_„ Legal 51897 January 16,1998 PROOF OF PUBLIC. 0 (2010 & 2011 C.C.P: STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above- entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of North County Times formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudged newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, underthe dates of June 30,1989 (Blade-Citizen) and June 21, 1974 (Times- Advocate) case number 171349 (Blade-Citizen) and case number 172171 (The Times-Advocate) for the cities of Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Solana Beach and the North County Judicial District; that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at California, this \ v \ day NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising This space is County Cleric's Filing Stamp Proof of Publication of A^.. ;NEGAnVE DECLARAnON r ^ Pr«Mt Addressa-ocatlon: A through lot between Tyler Street ' and Roosevelt Street north of Walnut Street in the City of CartSE>ad. ,»e->:-H -y • Project D^crtption: A 9,974 aauare foot reaeatlon center with asTOdated ofnces. v'-s. r TJe City of Cartsbad has conducted an environmental review pursuant to the Guklelines for Irrtplementatlon of the Callfpmia Environmental Quality Act and me Environmental Protecttoh Ordinance ofthe City of 9rSr?A- ^J'/ff** i^vlew. a Negative DadaraWon l*M^iSi«SSl P«iect wrtil ni^iav^Vsignlfiwit Impact a on.tti4 anvirwwnent) fcfiereby fsaUed (oKltw aubtect pro^.^ ^OsMflcatlon 1% th|jK« ^.—atfob wittn^^^^^^i^nehts^ rgebartment. 2q76LS>almMrj3itYe J lfl to the Planning De-partment within 20 gays of date of issuance |f vou have anv ^'^°I!?'i^fS?JSL*^M'to''Westman In the Planning De- ! R^?."*«?l£-^,^i^^^5^i«'rtenston4448. « 7* DATED: SEPTEMBER 19,1997 ' CASE NO: RP 97-03 > ^'K CASENAME: JOIN HANDS ^ - - /sJMIchael J. Holzmiller, Planning Director' ' , ' "' Legal 51007 September 19,1997 <, - ment, .7^ A copy of tha Ne is on file In the F Cartsbad, CaUfomia \ 0<t» |,j PROOF OF PUBLICAlltk (2010 & 2011 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego I am a citizen ofthe United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above- entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of North County Times formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudged newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, underthe dates of June 30, 1989 (Blade-Citizen) and June 21, 1974 (Times- Advocate) case number 171349 (Blade-Citizen) and case number 172171 (The Times-Advocate) for the cities of Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Solana Beach and the North County Judicial District; that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: Nov. 14, 1997 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. san Marcos Dated at California, this -'-'^^^ day of Nov. 1997 Signature NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising This space is for^R County Clerk's Filing Stamp Proof of Publication of Notice of Public hearing Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad ViHageDrt^^ „ iti oo p.m. on Monday, Novembw 24^ ^ gllow the S Se avanaliM on ?!?''KSrSniS Wall report, (or the As a resuWof en>rt«a^7^S^ ronmental QuaHW Ad g£^'c®5tebad. the Planning Diredor tember 19.1997Jhe^ -r;.;^^^^ Envi- ge^s^^KBi.^"'*!"^ ronsTder a reoimmendation for approval of the NegXe DedaraUon on November 24,1?97. If you challenge the Major Redevelopment Permit in court, you may be limited toraibfngonl/th^i^i^ vou or someone else ralsea at the public hearing des^ cribed in this notice onn written <»[respondence delivered to the City of Carisbad at or pnor to the public heaing- S'N«.EW BOARD Legal 51451 November 14,1997 City of Carlsbad Planning Department NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Address/Location: Project Description: A through lot between Tyler Street and Roosevelt Street north of Walnut Street in the City of Carlsbad. A 9,974 square foot recreation center with associated offices. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the Califomia 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 file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, Califomia 92009. 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 Christer Westman in the Planning Department at (760) 438-1161, extension 4448. DATED: CASE NO: CASE NAME: SEPTEMBER 19, 1997 RP 97-03 JOIN HANDS PUBLISH DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 1997 2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-0894 ® ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: RP 97-03 DATE: SEPTEMBER 15. 1997 BACKGROUND CASENAME: JOIN HANDS SAVE A LIFE APPLICANT: FRANK SORINO 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 3528 Madison Street. Carlsbad. Califomia 92008 4. 5. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Mav 30. 1997 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 9.974 square foot recreation building which principal space is a basketball court on an existing infill lot within the Citv of Carlsbad redevelopment area. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked beiow would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. • Land Use and Planning Transportation/Circulation Q Public Services • Population and Housing • Biological Resources Utilities & Service Systems • Geological Problems • Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics • Water • Hazards Cultural Resources X Air Quality • Noise Recreation • Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03/28/96 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) ^ 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 I I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I I 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. An Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I I 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 Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. Planner Signature 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 Impacf 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 Impacf 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 all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). • 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. 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 Impacf is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mifigated 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 mifigation 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 attenfion should be given to discussing mifigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (General Plan Master EIR 93- 01) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (General Plan Master EIR 93- 01) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) b) Seismic ground shaking? (General Plan Master EIR 93- 01) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) e) Landslides or mudflows? (General Plan Master EIR 93- 01) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) g) Subsidence of the land? (General Plan Master EIR 93- 01) h) Expansive soils? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) Potentially Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Significan Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated No Impact • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (General Plan Master EIR 93- 01) d) Create objectionable odors? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (General Plan Master EIR 93- 01) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) Potentially Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Significan Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated No Impact • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X X • • • • • • X • • • X • • • X • . • • • • • • • • X • • • X • • • Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting altemative transportation (e.g. bus tumouts, bicycle racks)? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) 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? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vemal pool)? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wastefiil and inefficient manner? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk ot accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (General Plan Master EIR 93- 01) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable bmsh, grass, or trees? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) Potentially Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Significan Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated • • • No Impact • • • X • • • • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (General Plan Master EIR93-01) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemment services in any of the following areas: Fire protection? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) Police protection? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) Schools? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significan t Impact No Impact Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) e) Other governmental services? (General Plan Master EIR93-01) 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? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) b) Communications systems? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (General Plan Master EIR 93- 01) e) Storm water drainage? (General Plan Master EIR 93- 01) f) Solid waste disposal? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) g) Local or regional water supplies? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) c) Create light or glare? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paieontological resources? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) c) Affect historical resources? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • M • • • • • • X • • • • • • • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (General Plan Master EIR 93- 01) Potentially Significant Impact • • Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated • • Less Than Significan t Impact No Impact • K • S XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01) • • • • • S • K XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the | | quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Califomia history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually | | limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will i—| cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? • • • • m • • s 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 Rev. 03/28/96 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION GENERAL: The project is the constmction of a single building less than 10,000 square feet. The site is zoned for commercial development and is vacant. Development of the site will not require significant modification to the land. There are no natural or historical significant resources onsite, therefore there will be no significant impacts due to development of the property. The development will not create significant impacts. There will not be a significant increase in traffic fi'om the use in that most users will not be of driving age. Noise will be contained within the stmcture, no hazardous materials will be used or stored onsite, the project will be constmcted according to the requirements of a redevelopment permit which included review of the building for aesthetic compatibility in the existing neighborhood. AIR OUALITY: 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 altemative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth managemer^ 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 Impacf. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparafion of an EIR is not required because the certificafion of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolufion No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerafions" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. 10 Rev. 03/28/96 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 Grovy1:h Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include 1) measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop altemative 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. 11 Rev. 03/28/96 PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2010 & 2011 C.C.P) I STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego I am a citizen ofthe United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above- entitled matter. I am the principal clerk ofthe printer of North County Times formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudged newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, under the dates of June 30, 1989 (Blade-Citizen) and June 21, 1974 (Times- Advocate) case number 171349 (Blade-Citizen) and case number 172171 (The Times-Advocate) forthe cities of Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Solana Beach and the North County Judicial District; that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: Nov. 14, 1997 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, san Marcos Dated at California, this 14th .day of Nov. 1997 Signature NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp tl^( Proof of Publication of Notice of Public hearing NOTl?rO?pSSffe'5^WNG I NOTICE IS HE«SSWeWn3 at B-.OO p.m. on Monday. November g,,^^ ^^e provai o'f a Maior Redevelopment PemiU^-^^ ^ prop, construction of a new 9587 square rooi iro^^ (fnld-block) 1 &Se?PraMn«lSK^^^^^^^^ City of fcarlsbad. County of San D'f office of the will be available on and of the staff report, for the any questions or wouW ^^^^^^^^^^^JlZ in the Housing and project, please contart 0®°°^,0.9^^^ ^ . Reclevelopment Department at (6^^^^^^^ Envi-As a resuTt of environmentgreview un^^^^ ronmental Quality Ad (i^^%^JS^d the Planning Dirwnor £e°d«ti?eM^^ tember 19.1997. The — Design Review Board wiH . < consider a recommendation for approval of the Negattve Declaration on November 24.1997. If you challenge the Major Redevelopment Permit in court, you may be limited^ to raiding only those issues vou or someone else raised at the public hearing des-cribed in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or pnor to ,^ the public hearing, r 'f^ Ca»8File:kP9783 . ; Case Name: Join Hands SISG'N'^IEW BOARD Legal 51451 November 14.1997