HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP 98-15; Agua Hedionda Visitor/Nature Center; Site Development Plan (SDP)c o
CITY OF CARLSBAD
LAND USE REVIEW APPLICATION
1) APPLICATIONS APPLIED FOR: (C
Q Administrative Permit - 2nd
Dwelling Unit
Q Administrative Variance
0 Coastal Development Permit
Q Conditional Use Permit
Q Condominium Permit
Q Environmental Impact
Assessment
[3 General Plan Amendment
Q Hillside Development Permit
Q Local Coastal Plan Amendment
Q Master Plan
Q Non-Residential Planned
Development
Q Planned Development Permit
HECK BOXES)
(FOR DEPARTMENT
USE ONLY)
^-y°i
Q Planned Industrial Permit
Q Planning Commission
Determination
O Precise Development Plan
O Redevelopment Permit
JO Site Development Plan
n Special Use Permit
O Specific Plan
n Tentative Parcel Map
Obtain from Engineering Department
n Tentative Tract Map
[~1 Variance
Q Zone Change
Q List other applications not
specified
(FOR DEPARTMENT
USE ONLY)
?£vr
2) ASSESSOR PARCEL NO(S).: 208-020->^and 35
PROJECT NAME:3)Agua Hedionda Visitor Center/Nature Center
4) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Tngfal lal-inn nf a
Visitor Center onto a 2.5 acre development pad on Kelly Ranch Area F.
gnarp fnnr g-inlp al-nry wnnrl framf>H
5) OWNER NAME (Print or Type)
Kelly Land Company,a Delaware Corporation
MAILING ADDRESS
2011 Palomar Airport Road,
CITY AND STATE ZIP
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Suite 206
TELEPHONE
(760) 931-1190
1 CERTIFY THAT 1 AM THE LEGAL OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE
INFORMATICS » IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY
""KNQWLEDdE.
\ -A /
siGNATURTfr) A£T Clemens/DATE
6) APPLICANT NAME (Print or Type)
Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation
MAILING ADDRESS
P.O. Box 4004
CITY AND STATE ZIP TELEPHONE
Carlsbad, CA 92018 (760) 434-2610
1 CERTIFY THAT 1 AM THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND
CORRECTJ07THE BE«7 OF MY KNOWLEDGE. / /
SIGNATURE Robert E. RichaT$frE
Vice President
7) BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION Carlsbad Tract
President
97-16. Area F (Lot 166).
NOTE: A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS BE FILED, MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 3:30 P.M.
A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING ONLY ONE APPLICATION BE FILED, MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 4:00 P.M.
Form 16 PAGE 1 OF 2
8)LOCATION OF PROJECT:Kelly Ranch Area F - west side of future Cannon Road.
STREET ADDRESS
ON THE
BETWEEN
WEST
(NORTH, SOUTH, EAST,WEST)
FUTURE FARADAY AVENUE
(NAME OF STREET)
9) LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE
1 0) PROPOSED NUMBER OF LOTS
1 3) TYPE OF SUBDIVISION
1 6) PERCENTAGE OF PROPOSED
PROJECT IN OPEN SPACE
1 9) GROSS SITE ACREAGE
22) EXISTING ZONING
N/A
N/A
90%
7.8
P-C
SIDE OF FUTURE CANNON ROAD
(NAME OF STREET)
AND EL CAMINO REAL
EIGHT
11) NUMBER OF EXISTING
RESIDENTIAL UNITS
14) PROPOSED IND OFFICE/
SQUARE FOOTAGE
17) PROPOSED INCREASE IN
ADT
20) EXISTING GENERAL
PLAN
23) PROPOSED ZONING
Zero
N/A
100
T-R
N/A
(NAME OF STREET)
12) PROPOSED NUMBER OF
RESIDENTIAL UNITS
15) PROPOSED COMM
SQUARE FOOTAGE
1 8) PROPOSED SEWER
USAGE IN EDU
21) PROPOSED GENERAL
PLAN DESIGNATION
Zerc
N/A
One
N/A
24)IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THIS APPLICATION IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR MEMBERS OF CITY
STAFF, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEMEBERS OR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
<ro INSPECT AND ENTER THE PROPERTY THAT is THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION. I/WE CONSENT
TOjvENTRY FOR THIS PURPOSE
SIGNATURE
FOR CITY USE ONLY
FEE COMPUTATION
APPLICATION TYPE
~/r
TOTAL FEE REQUIRED
FEE REQUIRED
RECEIVED
AUG 1 *» 1998
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPT
DATE STAMP APPLICATION RECEIVED
RECEIVED B>T
DATE FEE PAID RECEIPT NO.
Form 16 PAGE 2 OF 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/EXPLANATION
PROJECT NAME: Agua Hedionda Visitor Center
APPLICANT NAME: Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation
Please describe fully the proposed project by application type. Include any details
necessary to adequately explain the scope and/or operation of the proposed project.
You may also include any background information and supporting statements regarding
the reasons for, or appropriateness of, the application. Use an addendum sheet if
necessary.
Description/Explanation:
The proposed project involves the installation of a 3,600 square foot, single-
story wood frame Visitor Center building onto a 2.5 acre development pad on
Kelly Ranch Area F. Processing and approval of a Site Development Permit and
and a Coastal Development Permit will be required prior to installation and
operation of the facility.
Project Description 10/96 Page 1 of 1
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 CARLSBADWlLLAGE DRIVE CARLSBAD,
434-2887
~
DWI Ll FORM I A 92008
REC'D FROM DATE.
ACCOUNT NO.
/W/DU.V
RECEIPTNd. .40990
DESCRIPTION
CW 3t-&
^DP sjZ-K
?f?~
0099 06/14/98
NOT VALID UNLESS VALIDATED BY TOTAL
AMOUNT
, —i
^ 10
^ 6^1O
5Z) -
0001 01 02
f_ppMT 7°*^ M\
3, ci 9d ^
Printed on recycled piper.CASH REGISTER
X-N
4 SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FORM FOR ALL
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS
4 APPLICATION CHECKLIST FOR SINGLE FAMILY
REGULAR & MINOR COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS
(Application checklist for Non-Single Family Regular Coastal Development Permits covered under separate handout)
This supplemental application is to be filed for any development requiring a Coastal
Development Permit issued by the City of Carlsbad.
I. GENERAL BACKGROUND
x^
A. Estimated Cost of Development:
Development costing $60,000 or more does not qualify as a Minor Coastal
Development Permit. The Planning Director shall make the final determination
regarding a project's cost of development.
The primary basis for determining cost of development will be the application of
dollar costs per square foot for different types of residential construction. These
costs are set by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) and
are applied throughout San Diego County.
Please complete the following information to assist in the determination of this
project's cost of development (Contractor proposals may also be submitted for
consideration by the Planning Director).
=> New Residential Square Footage:
square feet x $78.00/sq. ft. = $
=> Residential Addition Square Footage:
square feet x $94.00/sq. ft. = $ ;
=> Any Garage Square Footage:
square feet x $22.00/sq. ft. = $
=> Residential Conversion Square Footage:
square feet x $26.00/sq. ft. = $
=> For Non-Residential Uses, use the following figures for calculations:
Retail/Store @ $38.00/sq. ft.; Restaurant @ $69.007 sq. ft.; Office @
$55.007 sq. ft.; Manufacturing/Warehouse @ $24.00/sq. ft.:
3.600 square feet x $ /sq. ft. = $
COST OF DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATE: $ 2 So,OOP ;
B. Do you wish to apply for:
1. A Minor Coastal Development Permit (Under $60,000)
2. A Regular Coastal Development Permit ($60,000 or more)
Form 15 10/97 Page 1 of 8
c oC. Street address of proposed development
West side of future Cannon Road north of future Faraday Avenue intersection.
D. Assessor's Parcel Number of proposed development
208-020-34 and 35
E. Development Description:
1. Briefly describe project: The proposed project involves the installation
of a 3,600 square foot, single-story wood frame Visitor Center building
onto a 2.5 acre development paH on Kplly Ranr.h Area F.
2. Estimated cost of development:
F. Describe the present land uses (i.e. Vacant land, single family homes,
apartments, offices, etc.) that surround the proposed development to the:
North: Vacant Land
South: Vacant Land
East: Vacant" T.pinrl
West: Vacant Land
G. Is project located within a 100 year flood plain? Q Yes Q No
PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY
A. Are there existing structures on the property? Q Yes Q No
If yes, please describe.
B. Will any existing structure be removed/demolished? Q Yes Q No
If yes to either question, describe the extent of the demolition or removal,
including the relocation site, if applicable (also show on plans).
III. LOT COVERAGE
A. Existing and Proposed
Existing New Proposed Total
Building Coverage Zero sq. ft. 3.600 sq. ft. 3.600 sq. ft.
Landscaped Area 2eao Sg. ft. 50.^00 sq.ft. So, (OOP sq. ft.
Hardscape Area 2ezo sq. ft. SZ.C.OQ sq, ft. Sz.ooosq. ft'.
Unimproved Area
(Left Natural) *"- sq.^ft. 3 OOP Sq'. ft. 30*0 Sq. ft.
Form 15 10/97 Page 2 of 8
B. Parking: Number of existing spaces Zero
Number of new spaces proposed 21 ?uj°» 8ot>
Existing/Proposed TOTAL: 12,
Number of total spaces required tJl
Number of covered spaces Zero
Number of uncovered spaces
Number of standard spaces
Number of compact spaces
Is tandem parking existing? Q Yes # Q No
Is tandem parking proposed? Q Yes # Q No
C. Grade Alteration:
Is any grading proposed? \^\ Yes Q No
If yes, please complete the following:
1. Amount of cut _J^i!li^^i= cu. yds.
2. Amount of fill .^ cu. yds.
3. Maximum height of fill slope Ht.j|M«n_ feet
4. Maximum height of cut slope H"-»VMA>- feet
5. Amount of import or export "Z&2,o cu. yds.
6. Location of borrow or disposal site
Form 15 10/97 Page 3 of 8
£.0?x^
I^LJ f^**, p€ ^J/^te^ C^CA^S
January 22, 1999 _
"**- if* - --« - - _ ,
* t i
AGUA HED/ONDA
LAGOON FOUNDATIONI
P.O. Box4004
Michael Ho
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, Ca. 92009
RE: OPEN SPACE ZONING FOR THE PORTION OF THE KELLY RANCH TO BE
OCCUPIED BY THE AGUA HEDIONDA NATURE CENTER
Dear Mr. Holzmiller:
As you remember on October 7, 1998, the Planning Commission approved a number of
resolutions to allow the Aviara Information Center to be relocated to Area F of the Kelly Ranch
Master Plan. We hope to have the building relocated to the site within the next week or so. The
Hillman Company is processing a number of discretionary permits, including a General Plan
Amendment, Zone Change and Local Coastal Plan Amendment to allow for the development of
the "core area" of the Kelly Ranch. As a part of these applications, Area F where the nature
center will be located will be zoned O-S, Open Space.
The Foundation supports this site being zoned O-S, Open Space. We believe that it is an
appropriate designation for a site that will be occupied by a nature center. However, we have a
very strong concerns about the impacts that this rezoning may have on our ability to operate the
nature center. Section 21.33.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, attached, does not list a nature
center as an allowed use in the Open Space Zone. Section 21.33.040 dealing with conditional
Uses in the Open Space Zone permits "Other related cultural, entertainment and recreational
activities and facilities", but does not specifically speak to a nature center. In addition, the
approval granted to this project by the Planning Commission did not include a Conditional Use
Permit. We are very concerned that our building may be considered a non-conforming use at a
later date, and no modifications can ever be made to the structure or parking lot.
We also have concerns that we may be informed that we would not be permitted to lease a
portion of our building to a public or quasi-public agency such as the Coastal Conservancy or
California Department of Fish & Game to help cover our maintenance costs. The Foundation has
always been up front with staff and the Planning Commission on this issue as we will need some
A California Nonprofit Corporation Since March 1990
type of financial assistance to cover the costs of maintaining the building.
We would like to meet with you and the City Attorney's Office, if necessary, to discuss this issue
as soon as possible. We will be calling your office to set up this meeting.
Sincerely,
Bob Richards
cc Christer Westman
Gary Wayne
Ray Patchett
Larry Clemmens
attachments
J •
PLANNING
SYSTEMS
PLANNING SYSTEMS LAND BROKERAGE
RESIDENTIAL / COMMERCIAL
SCHOOL FACILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
September 21,1998
Christer Westman
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92009
RE: Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation Nature Center
Dear Christer:
The following are the results of our analysis regarding the above-referenced
Nature Center project.
Hillside compliance:
Area of 25% - 40% slope encroachment 0.00 ac.
Area of 40% and greater slope encroachment 0.05 ac.
LCP compliance:
Area of dual criteria (25% and greater slopes
plus sage scrub plant communities) 0.05 ac.
Percentage of total dual criteria encroachment
of Area F (0.05 n-2.47 = 0.02)2.0%
Attached is a map demonstrating these analyses. Call with any questions.
Sincerely,
Paul J. Klukas
Director of Planning
2111 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD • SUITE 100 • CARLSBAD, CA 92009 • (619)931-0780 • FAX (619) 931-5744
CATEGORY'•3," Ai' B '0-15%
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING COUNT%CLERK
Mail to: County Clerk, County of San E^Jj, Mailstop 833, PO Box 1750, San Diego, C^^21 12
Response must be received by: October
Public Hearing Date: October 7. 1998 _
Public Hearing Place: 1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE. CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA. 92008
1998
Public Hearing Time: 6:00 p.m.fl LOrefloiy J. SmHh, Recorder/County Clerk
Project Title: Agua Hedionda Visitor/Nature Center - CDP 98-59 AU6 19 1998
Lead Agency: CITY OF CARLSBAD - PLANNING Contact Person:
Street Address: 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE Phone: (760)438-1161. extension
City: CARLSBAD Zip: 92009 County: SAN DIEGO COUN1
PROJECT LOCATION:
County: SAN DIEGO COUNTY City/Nearest Community: CITY OF CARLSBAD
Cross Streets: Cannon Road/Faraday Avenue Total Acres: 2.5
Assessor's Parcel No.208-020-34/35
Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: 1-5
Airports: McCLELLAN/PALOMAR
Section: _ Twp. _ Range: Base:
Waterways: Pacific Ocean / Agua Hedionda
Railways: NCTD Schools: Kelly School
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT:
CEQA: Q NOP Q Supplement/Subsequent
rj Early Cons Q EIR (Prior SCH Mo.)
^ Neg Dec Q Other:
Draft EIR
LOCAL ACTION TYPE:
Q General Plan Update
Q General Plan Amendment
Q General Plan Element
[~i Zone Code Amendment
Q Specific Plan
Q Master Plan
r~l Planned Unit Development
Site Plan
Rezone
Use Permit
Land Division (Subdivision,
Parcel Map, Tract Map, etc.)
Q Annexation
[~1 Redevelopment
^ Coastal Permit
rj Other:
Q Residential:
[J Office:
[~-| Commercial:
Q Industrial:
Q Recreational:
Units
So. Ft. 3,600
Sq. Ft.
So. Ft.
Acres
Acres 2.5
Acres
Acres
PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT:
Q Aesthetic/Visual
I""] Agricultural Land
rj Air Quality
Q"] Archaeological/Historical
^ Coastal Zone
Q Drainage/Absorption
[~] l-xonomic/Jobs
|~~| Fiscal
Q Flood Plain/Flooding
Q Forest Land/Fire Hazard
p| Geological/Seismic
I""] Minerals
Q Noise
| — | Population/Housing Balance
| — | Public Services/Facilities
[~| Recreation/Parks
rj Schools/Universities
Q Septic Systems
Q] Sewer Capacity
^ Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading
rj Solid Waste
rj Toxic/Hazardous
[~| Traffic/Circulation
M Vegetation
[~[ Water Quality
Q Water Supply/Ground Water
(~| Wetland/Riparian
g] Wildlife
rj Growth Inducing
Q Land Use
Q Cumulative Effect
rj Other:
Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Use
The site is currently vacant. The site is designated as Tourist Serving Commercial in the Kelly Ranch Master Plan and the City
General Plan.
Project Description:
The applicant has proposed the relocation of a 3,600 square foot building lo this site to serve as a visitor/nature center for the Agua
Hedionda Lagoon Foundation.
Where documents arc lociitcd for Public Review: Community Development Center. 2075 Las I'almas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009
July 1994
Bity of Carlsbad
Planning Department
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: West of Cannon Road at Faraday Avenue
Project Description:Relocation of a 3,600 square foot structure for use as a
visitor/nature center.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on 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, California 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 18,1998
SDP 98-15/CDP 98-59/PCD 98-01
AGUA HEDIONDA VISITOR/NATURE CENTER
PUBLISH DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 1998
MICHAEL J. HOLZM2LER
Planning Director
2O75 La Palmas Dr • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-157G • (76O) 438 1 161 • FAX (76O) 438-0894
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: SDP 98-15/CDP 98-59/PCD 98-01
DATE: September 1. 1998
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Agua Hedionda Visitor/Nature Center
2. APPLICANT: Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation
3.
4.
5.
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: P.O.Box 4004 Carlsbad. CA 92018
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: August 14. 1998
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Relocation of a 3.600 square foot structure for use as a visitor/nature
center.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
[~~| Land Use and Planning
[~| Population and Housing
[~"| Geological Problems
Q Water
Air Quality
[~] Transportation/Circulation [ | Public Services
[>3 Biological Resources [~~| Utilities & Service Systems
Q Energy & Mineral Resources [ | Aesthetics
[~"| Hazards . | | Cultural Resources
[""] Noise [~] Recreation
[~] Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
cDETERMINATION.
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 hi this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
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
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
Planning Directors Signature Date
Rev. 03/28/96
-WPACENVIRONMENTAL 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 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 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. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and
attached)
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(The proposed project does conflict with the
existing General Plan and Zoning designations. In
addition, it is an allowable use, consistent with the
existing Kelly Ranch Master Plan, which allows
tourist-recreational uses. City of Carlsbad Zoning
Ordinance Title 21, Kelly Ranch Master Plan).
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project? (The proposed project is consistent
with the Carlsbad Draft Habitat Management
Program. A Section 4(d) permit wil be required to
confirm this consistency. In addition, the proposed
project does not preclude the implementation of
the City's General Plan, including the Open Space
Element. General Plan, MEIR 93-01, Habitat
Management Plan for Natural Communities
12/1/97).
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (Surrounding existing land uses are
primarily historical agricultural and native open
space uses. The proposed project will not be
incompatible with these uses. MEIR 93-01,Kelly
Ranch Core Area Draft EIR 7/98).
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses? (The impacts of urban
land use and the discontinuance of agriculture in
this area have been addressed in the City's
General Plan EIR, and the General Plan does not
consider agriculture a permanent land use; The
proposed project will not directly affect existing
agricultural uses. Kelly Ranch Core Area Draft EIR
7/98).
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (The proposed temporary
storage project is to be located within an area
which is presently undeveloped, is not near or
adjacent to any low-income or minority
neighborhood, and w9l not divide or displace any
existing neighborhoods; Kelly Ranch Core Area
Draft EIR 7/98).
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and
attached)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (The proposed Visitor
Center project will not generate any population).
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (The proposed project is planned
for an area that has been desigtnated for urban
uses in the City General Plan, Zoning Ordinance,
and Growth Management Program. As a result, it
will not affect or induce additional planned growth
in any significant way; MBR 93-01, Zoning
Ordinance Title 21, City of Carlsbad Growth
Management Program).
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (The proposed project site is currently
undeveloped and installation of the Visitor Center
facility will not affect any existing residences;
(Kelly Ranch Core Area Draft EIR 7/98).
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in
or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (The proposed project will not result
in exposure of people or property to known
geologic or seismic hazards beyond those
identified generally in the City's General Plan EIR
and the Kelly Ranch EIR, since there is no active or
potentially active geologic faults identified within or
near the construction zone; MEIR 93-01, EIR 83-
04 Kelly Ranch EIR).
b) Seismic ground shaking? (See above; Also, soils
in the area of the proposed storage are of
sufficient compaction and no landslides or other
soils problems are anticipated within the
construction area; MEIR 93-01).
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(See above; Also, the City General Plan Master
EIR concluded that significant soils and geology
impacts throughout the City of Carlsbad can be
mitigated to a level of less than significant through
the implementation of mitigation measures. These
measures are the General Plan Public Safety
Element Implementing Policies and Action
Programs, EIR 83-04).
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (The
proposed project is not located in an area
identified in the City's General Plan EIR as
susceptible to Seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard;
MEIR 93-01, EIR 83-04 Kelly Ranch EIR).
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Rev. 03/28/96
o
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and
attached)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (See above; MEIR 93-
01, EIR 83-04 Kelly Ranch EIR).
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fa? (The
subject project wil involve grading of
approximately 2.5 acres. Erosion control wil be
included consistent with the City of Carlsbad
requirements. Only minor topographical changes
are proposed. All runoff will be directed into the
existing desiltation basin located at the westerly
edge of the subject site; EIR 83-04 Kelly Ranch
EIR).
g) Subsidence of the land? (The proposed Visitor
Center project wifl comply with the City of
Carlsbad's policies regarding soil protection as
defined and concluded in the General Plan Master
EIR as described above; MEIR 93-01).
h) Expansive soils? (The proposed project will be
installed on a concrete slab, constructed
consistent with Carlsbad building requirements
and as recommended through Geotechnical
Evaluations; MEIR 93-01, Pacific Soils
Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation, 7/23/98)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (No unique
physical features exist within the boundaries of the
proposed project; MEIR 93-01, EIR 83-04 Kelly
Ranch EIR).
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runoff? (The
proposed project will not significantly change
drainage patterns, runoff, flooding hazard, nor
impact groundwater quality. All runoff wil be
channelized in improved storm drain facilities to
the existing desiltation basin at the westerly end of
the subject site. (MEIR 93-01).
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? (The proposed project
witt be situated at approximately elevation 75 msl,
which is significantly above the 100-foot flood
stage. As a result, it will not be exposed to
flooding potential; MEIR 93-01).
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (The proposed project will
not involve discharge of any surface waters which
will it result in an alteration of water quality, since it
will be consistent with Carlsbad water quality and
erosion control requirements; MEIR 93-01).
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and
attached)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? (The proposed project wil not
discharge directly or in an uncontrolled manner
into any surface waters, modify surface water paths
to any significant degree whatsoever, nor result in
an alteration of water quality; Potential temporary
erosion impacts during the pad grading period may
occur, but wil be mitigated through standard
Carlsbad erosion controal methods. City of
Carlsbad Grading Ordinance).
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements? (The proposed project will
result in no substantive change in the course or
direction of water movement as concluded in the
City's General Plan EIR; MEIR 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? (The proposed temporary building
storage does not involve any withdrawals or
additions to the groundwater; MEIR 93-01).
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(See above; MEIR 93-01, EIR 83-04 Kelly Ranch
EIR).
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (The proposed
project will not result in impacts to groundwater
quality; MEIR 93-01).
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies? (The proposed project wil not result in
impacts to groundwater or water otherwise
available for public water supplies; MEIR 93-01).
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (The
proposed project will not generate air pollution, or
generate significant amounts of vehicular traffic,
and as a result, will not impact or affect the region's
air resources; MEIR 93-01).
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (The
proposed project will not create any impacts to
sensitive receptors; MEIR 93-01).
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? (The proposed
Visitor Center project will not invoke climatic or air
mass changes; MEIR 93-01, EIR 83-04 Kelly
Ranch EIR).
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and
attached)
d) Create objectionable odors? (The Visitor Center
project will not create noxious odors; MEIR 93-01)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (The
proposed project wil generate only a minimal
amount of destination vehicular trips, and as a
result wiH not create traffic congestion; MEIR 93-
01).
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (The
proposed project win achieve access to Cannon
Road via an access point consistent with City of
Carlsbad standards; MEIR 93-01).
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? (The proposed project will not affect
approved emergency access to the area in
compliance with applicable City codes; MEIR 93-
01).
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-srte or off-site?
(The proposed building storage project win not
require or necessitate vehicular parking.
Permanent vehicular access for routine
maintenance will be provided for the project; MEIR
93-01).
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(The proposed Visitor Center project will not
create any significant hazard or barriers for
pedestrians or bicyclists; MEIR 93-01).
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (The proposed project will not
affect alternative transportation methods in any
way; MEIR 93-01).
g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts? (The
proposed project will not affect rail, waterbome or
air traffic impacts in any way; MEIR 93-01)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and
attached)
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? (The proposed project
is anticipated to affect approximately 0.39 acres of
coastal sage scrub and 0.67 acres of disturbed
coastal sage scrub vegetation, and a single coastal
California gnatcatcher (poloptila califomica);Ke//y
Ranch Core Area Draft EIR 7/98).
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(No locally designated species are located within
the subject area; Kelly Ranch Core Area Draft EIR
7/98).
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (The proposed
project will affect 0.39 acres of coastal sage scrub
and 0.67 acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub
which are considered sensitive coastal resources,
and are determined to be sensitive in the Draft
Carlsbad Habitat Management Program. Kelly
Ranch Core Area Draft EIR 7/98, Habitat
Management Plan tor Natural Communities within
the City of Carlsbad).
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)? (The proposed project will not affect any
wetlands; Kelly Ranch Core Area Draft EIR 7/98).
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (The
federally threatened California gnatcatcher
occupies the identified coastal sage scrub in the
area; Kelly Ranch Core Area Draft EIR 7/98).
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(The proposed project will be constructed in a
fashion which is consistent with City of Carlsbad
policies regarding energy conservation; MEIR 93-
01).
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (The proposed project wll not
involve the use of non-renewable resources in a
wasteful and inefficient manner, and win be
consistent with City of Carlsbad policies regarding
energy conservation; MEIR 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? (No known
mineral resources occur within the area of the
proposed Visitor Center; MEIR 93-01, EIR 83-04).
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
X
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
10 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and
attached)
IX HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (The
proposed Visitor Center project will not involve risk
of these circumstances as determined in the City's
General Plan EIR; MEIR 93-01).
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
(The proposed building storage wil not impede
emergency response; MEIR 93-01).
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazards? (The proposed Visitor Center
project will not create any health hazards as
concluded in the City of Carlsbad General Plan
Master EIR; MEIR 93-01).
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? (The proposed wil not
expose people to existing sources of health
hazards as determined in the General Plan Master
EIR; MEIR 93-01).
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (The proposed project will comply
with City of Carlsbad fire suppression programs,
and will not increase fire hazard).
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (The proposed
Visitor Center structure and use wiD not increase
noise levels to any significant degree; Kelly Ranch
Core Area Draft EIR July 1998).
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (No
significant impacts from Cannon Road or other
sources will occur as a result of the proposed
project; Kelly Ranch Core Area Draft EIR July
1998, MEIR 93-01).
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (No fire hazard, nor significant
additional need for fire protection wiH be required
as a result of the proposed project. (MEIR 93-01).
b) Police protection? (No additional police protection
requirements will result from installation of the
subject Visitor Center structure; MEIR 93-01).
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
i
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
11 Rev. 03/28/96
o
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and
attached)
c) Schools? (The proposed project wil not generate
a demand for schools; MEIR 93-01).
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
(The project is located within an area designated
by the General Plan, Zoning Map and KeNy Ranch
Master Plan as future urbanizing area, and as a
result no unanticipated substantive increase in
road maintenance wil be necessitated by the
project; MEIR 93-01, EIR 83-04 Kelly Ranch EIR).
e) Other governmental services? (The proposed
project win not require significant additional
governmental services; MEIR 93-01).
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? (Development of the
proposed project wil not create any significant
demand for new power or natural gas facilities or
services. MEIR 93-01).
b) Communications systems? (The proposed project
win not create a significant new demand for major
facilities or to require substantial alterations to
existing facilities; MEIR 93-01).
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (The proposed project will not result in
significant increase in sewage generation or water
usage, and as a result, will not significantly affect
local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities; MEIR 93-01, EIR 83-04 Kelly Ranch EIR).
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (The proposed project will
not result in any significant demand for new, or
unplanned sewer facilities.).
e) Storm water drainage? (The proposed Visitor
Center building will not result in a need for
significant storm water drainage facilities. Runoff
from the subject site will drain into the existing
desiltation basin located at the westerly edge of
the subject site; MEIR 93-01).
f) Solid waste disposal? (The proposed project will
not result in a significant increase in solid waste;
MEIR 93-01).
g) Local or regional water supplies? (The proposed
project wiH not result in a significant increase in
demand for local or regional water supply, and will
increase the opportunity for supply of reclaimed
water for the City. MEIR 93-01).
Potentially
Significant
Impact
-
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
12 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and
attached)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal.
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (The
proposed building wil be visible from Park Drive,
however, due to its smafl size, should not
constitute a significant visual impact; Kelly Ranch
Core Area Draft EIR 7/98).
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect?
(The proposed project is single story in size and
scale, is aesthetically and architecturally pleasing,
and as a result win have no negative aesthetic
effect).
c) Create light or glare? (No light or glare wil result
from the proposed project; MEIR 93-01).
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (There are no
known paleontological resources within the
subject area; EIR 83-04).
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (The proposed
project site is not within an area identified as
posessing archaeological resources ;EIR 83-04).
c) Affect historical resources? (There are no known
historical features within the alignment of the
proposed project; MEIR 93-01, EIR 83-04 Kelly
Ranch EIR).
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
(The proposed project is located within an area
which is not known to contain unique ethnic
cultural resources; MEIR 93-01).
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (The proposed project is
located within an alignment which does not restrict
religious uses or impact sacred areas; MEIR 93-
01).
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (The
proposed project will create no additional need for
parks or other recreation facilities. MEIR 93-01).
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (The
proposed project will not affect existing recreation
opportunities; MEIR 93-01).
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
13 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and
attached)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish
or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory? (The proposed
project does have the potential to significantly
degrade the quality of the environment as a result
of its impacts to coastal sage scrub and disturbed
coastal sage scrub habitat, and its potential impact
on a single California gnatcatcher. It however, will
not affect the habitat of fish populations, and as
conditioned with mitigation, should not result in a
significant impact on wildlife species.; Kelly Ranch
Core Area Draft EIR 7/98).
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 trie effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects)? The
proposed project does not have the potential to
result in cumulatively considerable incremental
impacts to a significant degree. The project is
temporary in nature, and will not cumulatively
impact growth).
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause the substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly? The
proposed Visitor Center project will not cause
substantial adverse impacts, either directly or
indirectly on human beings, since it is to be utilized
as an amenity for public use.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
14 Rev. 03/28/96
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or
other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an
earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a
discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a) 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.
c) 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.
a) ANALYSIS
Earlier analyses used in conjunction with this assessment are the:
1. City of Carlsbad General Plan, 1992,
2. Carlsbad Growth Management Program, 1987,
3. Carlsbad General Plan Master EIR (MEIR 93-01,
4. Kelly Ranch EIR (EIR 83-04),
5. Kelly Ranch Core Area Draft EIR, dated 7/98,
6. Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance Title 21,
7. Pacific Soils Engineering Geotechnical Evaluation, dated July 23, 1998.
b) DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Please use this area to discuss any of the environmental factors that were checked
"No impact" yet lack any information citations and any factors that were checked
"Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation
Incorporated." The City has adopted a "Statement of Overriding Consideration" with
regard to air quality and circulation impacts resulting from the normal buildout
15 Rev. 03/28/96
according to the General Plan. The following sample text is intended to guide your
discussion of the impacts to these environmental factors.
AIR QUALITY:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the
updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power
consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the
emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur,
and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution
in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a
"non-attainment basin," any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively
significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated
General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout,
a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These
include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or
concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the
implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3)
provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit
services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable
and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been
incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project
approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the
project is located within a "non-attainment basin," therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist
is marked "Potentially Significant Impact." This project is consistent with the General
Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of
Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement
Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding
Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's
Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of
air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department.
CIRCULATION:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the
updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway
segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2
partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which
the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange
areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the
implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to
fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
16 Rev. 03/28/96
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 buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-
traffic, however, project related impacts are considered to be below a level of
significance with mitigation identified in the Zone 19 LFMP. The "Initial Study" checklist
is marked "Potentially Significant Impact." Development of the subject is consistent
with the current 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 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.
BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS: The proposed project involves the disturbance of 0.39 acres
of coastal sage scrub and 0.67 acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub. In addition, a
California gnatcatcher has been sighted on the subject property, and disturbance of
this treatened species may occur. Mitigation for these impacts will be necessary in
order to result in a finding of no significant impact.
VISUAL IMPACTS: The proposed building is not anticipated to result in a significant
impact to visual resources. This is because the subject building is single story, low in
scale, and the greatest potential for visual impact occurs along Park Drive, which is
located over 2000 horizontal feet away. The building however, must be installed in an
architecturally and aesthetically pleasing manner.
17 Rev. 03/28/96
LIST OF MITIGATION MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall consult with U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and the U.S. Army
Corps regarding any obligation to obtain State and/or Federal permits for the
disturbance of jurisdictional vegetation and the California gnatcatcher.
2. Disturbance to .32 acres of coastal sage scrub and .67 acres of disturbed coastal
sage scrub shall be mitigated through the preservation of .64 acres of coastal sage
scrub and .67 acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub onsite.
3. "Take" of .99 acres of coastal sage scrub shall require issuance of a 4(d) Habitat
Loss Permit.
4. All areas of habitat protection shall be staked and flagged to the satisfaction of the
Public Works Director. A note to this effect shall be placed on the grading plans.
5. All exterior lighting shall be located as low in height as is practical to provide
sufficient night visibility yet protect offsite areas from light overspill.
18
c
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
fo
Date Signature
19
PROJECT NAME: Aqua Hedionda Visitor/Nature Center
APPROVAL DATE:
FILE NUMBERS: SDP 98-15/CDP 98-55/HDP 98-16/PCD 98-01
MITIGATED NEG. DEC.: 9-9-98
The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate
identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that
this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly
Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6).
Mitigation Measure
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall
consult with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California
Department of Fish and Game regarding any obligation to obtain
State and/or Federal permits for the disturbance of jurisdictional
vegetation and the California gnatcatcher.
The property owner shall place 1 .33 acres of coastal sage scrub
and .72 acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub onsite into a
conservation easement as mitigation for the disturbance to .32
acres of coastal sage scrub and .67 acres of disturbed coastal
sage scrub. The easement shall be submitted for recordation prior
to the issuance of a grading permit.
"Take" of .99 acres of coastal sage scrub shall require issuance of
a 4(d) Habitat Loss Permit. The Habitat Loss Permit shall be
approved by City Council prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
All areas of habitat protection shall be staked and flagged to the
satisfaction of the Public Works Director prior to commencing
construction. A note to this effect shall be placed on the grading
plans.
All exterior lighting shall be located as low in height as is practical
to provide sufficient night visibility yet protect offsite areas from
light overspill to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
Monitoring
Type
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Monitoring
DepartrneHt
USFWS
CDFG
Planning
Department
Planning
Department
Engineering
Department
Planning
Department
Shown on
• Plans
Verified
Implementation Remarks
mz
55o
m
bH
O
i
O
O
Xmo
u(Q(D
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure,
information.
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be
initialed and dated.
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented,
this column will be initialed and dated.
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other
RD - Appendix P.