HomeMy WebLinkAboutV 94-01; Carlsbad by the Sea Lutheran Homes; Variance (V) (4).?
- EWTRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. RP94-06. CDP94-06. CUP94-10. HDP94-08. V94-01
DATE: MARCH 6. 1995
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BY THE S EA LUTHERAN HOME
2. APPLICANT: CARLSBAD LUTHERAN HOMES
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT:
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMI'ITED: JUL Y 19. 1994
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Car lsbad bv the Sea Droiect will cons ist of the redeveloDment of the
existine Drofessional care facilitv located north and south of Grand Avenue in the Villaee Redeveloument
Zone. R-3 and Beach Area Overlav Zones. and the develment of a 12.600 sa uare foot ocean front parcel
directly west of the main structure o n Ocean Street in the R-3 and Be ach Area Ov erlav Zones. All three
parcels will be develomd with new structures. h owever. the fro nt facade o f the main structure will be
redicated. The existing urofessional care facilitv consists of 102 livinn units. 59 skilled nursing be ds. and
ancillarv services. The redeveloued facility (includinn all three uarcels) will consist of 159 livinn units,
33 skilled nursing beds. 2 visitor units. a theram center with mol. ancillarv facilities. and subterranean
parking below each of the struc tures uro vidinn kinn for 229 cats. The MO iect also includes a uartial
street vacation of Christiansen Wav from 80 feet of right-of-way to 40 feet of ritzht-of-way. and the
improvement of a 57 mace uublic uarkine lot within the existing Garf ield Street ri eht-of-way.
WMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
me summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
me impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact", or "Potentially Sigmficant Impact Unless Mitigation
ncorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
- Land Use and Planning - X TransportatioIJCirculation - Public Services
- Population and Housing - Biological Resources - Utilities and Service Systems
- Geological Problems - Energy and Mined Resources - Aesthetics
- Water - Hazards CulturalResources
- X Air Quality - X Noise - Recreation
- Mandatory Findings of Sigruficance
1-1 Rev. 1pOp5
.-
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepated.
I fmd that although the proposed project could have a signrficant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
x
a
I find that the proposed project MAY have signficant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect
1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measwes based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the
effect is a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially sipficant unless mitigated.” An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/MITIGATE NEGATNE DECLARATION is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. U
I find that although the proposed project could have a signifkant effect on the environment, then WILL
NOT be a sigruficant effect in this case because all potentially sigmfkant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards
and (b) have been avoided or mitigated purmant to that earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
h 4hh s”
PLANNING DIRECTORU Date
1-2 Rev. 1pOps
,-
ENvTRONMENTAL IMPA-
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an fiviromental
Impact Assessment to detamine 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 infomtion
to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental hpact 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 signrficant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
"Potentially Sigmfkant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Sigmfkant Impact" to a "Less Than Si@icant 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 sipiilcant level.
"Potentially Sigmfbnt Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is signtficant.
Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially signifcant effect on the
environment, but potentially sigmficant 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, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior
Compliance).
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any
of its aspects may cause a signifbnt effect on the environment.
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 sigdicant, and those mitigation measures are
agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Sigmfkant
Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be
prepared.
When "Potentially Sigfllficant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR
if the sigruf'icant 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.
1-3
-~~
Rev. mw /7
An EIR mwt be prepad if "Potentially Significant Impact" is check& and including but not limited to the
following c- : (1) the potentially sigmfkant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Eariie~ EIR pursuant to apphable standatds, and the developer does not ap to mitigation mtasures that reduce
the impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Ovemdihg Considerations" for the sigrufkant impact
has not been made pursuant to an earlier Em, (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact
to less than significant, or, (4) through the EM-Part It analysis it is not possible to detemrine the level of
significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in
reducing a potentially signiiicant 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 1 DISCUSS1 F VA A . particular attention should be given to discussing
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined signdicant.
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
Conflict with general plan designation
or zoning? (Source #3, #7)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans
or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? (#3, #7, #8) - -
Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (Source #7)
Affect agricultural resources or operations
(e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts
from incompatible land uses)? (Source R3, #8)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement
of an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)? (Source #7) X -
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (Source #3) X -
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects
in an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? ( 1 X -
X 7
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( 1
1-5 Rev. 1pops i
Isrua (and suppcxtiq hlfm ssrmcrr):
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the
proposal result in or expose people to potential
impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (Source #1)
Seismic ground shaking? (Source bl)
Seismic ground failure, including
liquefaction? (Source #1)
Seiche, tsunarm *, or volcanic hazard? ( )
Landslides or mudflows? ( )
Erosion, changes in topography or
unstable soil conditions fkom excavation,
grading, or fill? ( )
Subsidence of the land? ( )
Expansive soils? ( )
Unique geologic or physical features? ( )
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in -on rates, drainage patterns, ortherateandaaonntofsurfscerunoff?( )
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? ( Source # 2)
1-6 Rev. 1m5
a5
c) Discharge into SIPface waters or other
alteration of Surface water quality (e.g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)? ( )
d) Changes in the amount of surface water
in any water body? ( )
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( )
f) Change 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? (Source #3) X -
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater? (Source #3) X
X
-
- h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Source R3)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for
public water supplies? (Source t3) X -
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source
#3) x
Expose sensitive rccepors to pollutants? (Source it3)
Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
-
or cause any change in climate? ( ) - - x
Create objectionable odors? ( ) - 7 x
1-7 Rev. 1/30/95
VI. TRANSPORTATION/QRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Source
#3 & #4) x -
b) Hazards to safety hrn design features
(e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (Source
#4) - -
e) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? (Source #3)
d) Lnsuficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (Source #4)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or .bicyclists? (Source #4)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (Source #3)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Source #3)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, thnarared or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds? (Source #3) - -
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage
trees)? (Source #3)
X -
X -
I-%
c) Locally designated natural communities
(e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source #3) -
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (Source #3)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration
corridors? (Source #3)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? (Source #3)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (Source #3)
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? (Source
#3)
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? (Source #3) -
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source
#3)
c) The creation of any hdth hazard or
. potential health hazard? (Source #3)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources
of potential health hazards? (Source #3)
X -
X -
X -
1-9 Rev. 1/30/95
-. .
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? (Source #3)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Source #S)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise
levels? (Source #5)
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:
Fire protection? (Source #3)
Police protection? (Source #3)
Schools? (Source #3)
Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? (Source #3)
Other governmental services? (Source #3)
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or
supplies, or substamkl alterations to the following
utilities:
a) Power or natuxal gas? (Source #3)
b) Communications systems? (Source #3)
I- 10
c) Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities? (Source #3)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Source #3)
e) Storm water drainage? (Source #3)
f) Solid waste disposal? (Source #3)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (Source #3)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic
highway? (Source #3)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect? ( 1
c) Create light or glare? (Source #3)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Source 63)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Source #6)
c) Affect historical resources? (Source #3, #6)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? (Source #)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (Source #6)
I- 11
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (Source
#3) - -
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (Source
#3) - -
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 wild life 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? -
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 enviranmental effects which
will cause sulxmaial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly ar indirtctly?
X -
I- 12
A
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one Q more effects have been adequately anaiyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this cast a discussion should idenofy the following
on attached sheets:
Earlier analyses used. Identrfy earlier analyses and state where they arc available for
review.
&pacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects fiom the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an alia document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measwes which were incorporated or refined from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the
project.
I- 13 Rev. 1/30/95
DISCUSSION 0 F ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The existing Carlsbd by the.- Lutheran Home consists of multiple structures on two of thne separate
parcels: Parcel 1 is a 2.3 acre parcel fronting Catisbad Blvd. north of Grand Avenue; Parcel 2 is a 12,600
square foot ocean front lot west of Ocean Street; and Parcel 3 is a .9 acre lot fronting Carlsbad Blvd. south
of Grand Avenue. The larger parcel or main facility is located in both the Village Redevelopment Zone and
Beach Area Overlay Zone and within two separate local coastal program segments. It contains 102 living
units, offices, meeting rooms, chapel, dining room and lobby. The main structure fronting Carlsbad Blvd. is
multistory, approximately 36.5' in height, and has been identified as a locally significant historic structure in
the Citfs cultural resource survey. It was constructed, pattially of unreinforccd concrete masonry in 1929,
and currently is not in compliance with local and state seismic code requirements. The parcel also contains
six multi-unit single story cottages consisting of living units and located on the western portion of the parcel
fronting on Ocean Street in the Beach Area Overlay Zone. The small beach front parcel is currently
undeveloped and is used as a scenic viewing area consisting of a concrete stairway, benches, and fencing.
The .9 acre parcel located south of Grand Avenue consists of a single story, 59 bed skilled nursing facility
and small community center, both built in 1974. Improvements include two parking areas and garages at the
southwest comer of the lot fronting on Garfield Street.
The decision to redevelop rather than rehabilitate the existing facility stems !?om the estimated cast of seismic
retrofit along with costs for major upgrades to the existing building's aging plumbing, heating, and electrical
systems. The applicant has also indicated that the existing facility is no longer competitive with other
comparable professional care facilities due both to accessibility problems and living units which are converted
hotel rooms that are too few, too small, and poorly configured.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETZWG
The project site is previously disturbed and surrounded by existing relatively small scale commercial and
residential development. These parcels have frontages on Carlsbad Boulevard, a community theme scenic
corridor, Chistiansen Way, Grand Avenue, Garfield Street, and/or Ocean Street. The existing facilities
provide very limited parking onsite and rely on the surrounding public streets to satisfy their parking demand.
Parcel 1 site elevations range from 58 feet msl on the east to 45 feet msl on the west and is subject to the
development regulations of three different zoning designations (VR, R-3, and BAOZ) and two Werent local
coastal program segments (Village Redevelopment and Mello II). Parcel 3 site elevations range from 57 feet
msl to 50 feet msl and is entirely within the VR zone and regulated by the Village Design Manual. Parcel
2 site elevations range &am 7 feet msl at the bottom of the coastal bluff to 44 msl along Ocean Street. This
infill lot has never baa developed although it has been utilized as a scenic viewing area and is covered with
invasive ice plant species and surrounded by development. Parcel 2 is subject to the R-3 and BAOZ zone
development regulations and the Mello II segment of carlsbad's Lacal coastal Program.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A. Environmental Impact Discussion
I - 14
la. Land Use:
The project consists of the redevelopment of the existing professional can facility which is located in areas
designated by the General Plan for both Village Redevelopment (YR) and high density residential 0. Uses
permitted by right and conditionauy in these designated areas include cammercial, multiple family residential,
and professional care facilities (allowed as a conditional use). The project is subject to and consistent with
the R-3, BAOZ, and VR zoning ordinances as well as the Mello IT and Village Redevelopment segments of
the Local Coastal Program except for building height. Although the Village Design Manual (Zoning document
for redevelopment area) specifies that the entire ground floor of all projects located in the area shall be
devoted to visitor commercial uses unless an amendment to the Local Coastal Program is approved, the
Carlsbad by the Sea Lutheran Home has existed at its present location since the mid-196Us. While the facility will be intensified, the existing professional care uses will not change. The professional care facility is a
commercial use, however, neither the existing facility nor the proposed facility includes a visitor serving
commercial component on the ground floor. The Village Design Manual regdating uses in the VR zone ody,
does not spec@ that existing uses must be converted to visitor serving uses if sites are redeveloped to serve
existing uses. Upon change of use on the property, visitor serving uses on the ground floor will be required.
The project is consistent with the development standards of the above mentioned Zoning ordinances except
for building height. Parcel 1 building height exceeds the maximurn 35' building height allowed along the
n Way. As Carlsbad Boulevard frontage (36.5 feet) and adjacent to the driveway ramp along Chmtmse
mitigation for demolishing the locally significant historic structure, the applicant is required to replicate the
existing 36.5' building facade along Carlsbad Boulevard. Building height also exceeds the 35' maximum
height standard along Christiansen Way (northern elevation) adjacent to the driveway ramp providing access
to the underground parking garages. Building height is exceeded at this location Since the closest grade for
measurement purposes is the sidewalk and street located north of the driveway ramp which is lower than the
grade established for height measurement around the remainder of the building. An exemption to height
standards will be recommended since strict adherence to height standards at these locations would result in
practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships which would make development inconsistent with the intent and
purpose of the Village Design Manual and Plan Exceptional circumStan ccs do apply to the proposed
development with regard to construction requirements surrounding the skilled nursing facility and the multiple
zoning regulations applicable to the property. Building height will not be injurious or materially detrimental
to propeny or the public at this location since building height currently exceeds 35' along Carlsbad Boulevard
and the structure is separated from adjacent development to the north by the driveway ramp and the 40' wide
Chnstiansen Way public right of way. Granting an exemption wiU not contmdict the standards established
by the manual since the intent of the manual is to provide general design guidelines and regulations rather than
strict standards, and with the exceptions noted above, the Parcel 1 and 3 structures comply with the maximum
height permitted by the VR and R-3/BAOZ zones. Based upon the above, the project building height does not
generate a si@icant environmental impact with regard to aesthetics or building intensification in the Village.
..
The Parcel 2 structure, located west of Ocean Street in the Beach Area Overlay Zone, is restricted to 24' and
two levels due to its flat roof. The flat roof is utilized as an open roof garden above a parking garage adjacent
to Ocean Street and six living units extending over the bluff to the beach. The proposed structure is
approximately 4-5' high along Ocean Street, and 3Y to the top of roof along the western elevation. The
western portion of the structure is also three levels. A Variance to height s&adads is required a& this
however, the additional height will not result in a significant adverse en-tal impact since the existing
view corridor will be retained from Ocean street for residents and the public, the structures will observe the
"stringline" structural setbacks avoiding further seaward encIoachment, and the structure will be the same
height or lower than existing structures adjacent to the northhi south.
I- 15 Rev. 1/30195
.-. f
lb. The project is located within the Mello II and Village Redevelopment segments of Carlsbad’s Local Castal
Program, Parcel 2 located west of Ocean Street and one third of parcel 1 located cast of OceanStrtet arc-
subject to Mello II policies requiring bluff stability, avoidance of liquefaction problems associated with seismic
hazards, “stringline” setbacks, access along shorelines, and arcbacologd or paleontological resources.
Compliance with the recommendations of the Leighton and Associates‘ Geatechnical Investigation.for these
parcels will avoid cdcts with policies requiring soil stability. The required seaward stringline setbacks are
provided by the project thereby ensuring lateral public access. Due to the relatively Small acreage and
previously disturbed and/or infill nature of the sites, significant archaeological or paleontological ~esou~ces are
unlikely to be present. Although no seawall is proposed for the development, a 7’ high foundation wall will
provide the necessary protection fiom wave action during high tide and severe storms.
The remainder of Parcel 1 and Parcel 3 are subject to the Village Redevelopment segmcnt of the LCP Willage
Design Manual) which regulates land uses and development standards. As described above, the existing uses
will not change and the project is consistent with all required development standards except building height
(see paragraphs 2 and 3 under Land Use la above).
lc. Carlsbad by the Sea is an existing professional we facility which has occupied two of the three parcels
proposed for development for approximately 30 years. The facility is surrounded by a hotel and a church to
the north, a motel, vacation rental residential units, and the ocean to the west, Carlsbad Boulevard to the east,
and the Town Center commercial development to the south. The project will intensify the existing
development on two of the parcels and develop Parcel 2 located west of Ocean Street which is cun’ently
undeveloped. The project adheres to coverage and height standards (with two exceptions) through a terraced
design in which building height is reduced to 30’ consistent with the BAOZ height festTiction. Parcel 3 located
south of Grand is completely within the VR zone permitting 35’ in building height, however, a tenaced design
will be provided to create a transition from three stories to two stories along the Garfield Street frontage to
enswe compatibility with the Smaller scale development located west of Garfield Street within the BAOZ.
Additionally, since Parcel 3 abuts the Town Center Commercial development to the south, the facility is
designed to orient living units away fiom the commercial development by limiting south facing windows and
locating stairways along the property line to buffer units from adjacent commercial development. The
structure is oriented away from the southern property line to the greatest extent possible and a five to six foot
high screen wall along the southern property line is provided to screen the outdoor recreation area from
adjacent commercial development.
The above described site design will ensure compatibility with existing der scale development and uscs
in the vicinity. Additionally, the provision of underground parking on each Parcel will reduce the number of
vehicles associated with the existing professional care facility which currently park on the street thereby
reducing the impact of this type of facility in the beach area
Id. No agricultural ~esomrxs ot opuations will be impacted by the proposed redevelopment project which is
located in the downtown Vie area and has been surrounded by development for many years.
Way between carlsbad Boulevard and Ocean Street, le. The project includes the partial vacation of chmtmsa
however, access to a Garfield Strat public parking lot and the beach will still be provided withjn the
remaining right of way. The project will not divide the physical arrangement of the area since the professional
care facility is being developed or redeveloped on existing parcels.
..
I- 16
2a. Although the project represents an increase of 57 living units with the potential to doubk the current Cdsbad
by the Sea resident population which will represent a small increase in the local population, development of
the facility will not mult in changes to population projections since projections are based upon residential
dwelling units. professid can facilities are commercial sexvice in nature and are therefore not considered
in the City's popuIation projections.
2b. The redevelopment project will increase in size, however, it will not induce substantial growth in the arca since
the number of living units will increase by only 57 and the number of nursing beds will decrease by 26. This
increase will have no impact on existing projects surrounding the site which may also expand their commercial
facilities within the existing regulatory parameters upon approval of a redevelopment permit or wnditional
use permit.
2c. The redevelopment of the professional care facility will temporarily displace current residents of Carlsbad by
the Sea during construction, however, residents will be relocated to other Carlsbad Lutheran Homes and may
return to the Carlsbad facility upon completion of the project if they choose to do so.
3a-i. Compliance with the recommendations of a Geotechnid Jnvestigation conducted by Leighton and
Associates in June, 1994, for the project will ensure that there are less than significant impacts from such
conditions as seismic ground shaking, ground failure, land subsidence, landslides or other unstable soil
conditions. The coastal bluff proposed for development on Parcel 2 is a unique geologic feature, however,
the infill parcel is heavily impacted by erosion due to wave action. The bluff will be supported by an
approximately 20' high retaining wall constructed beneath the structure thereby protecting it from further
erosion.
4ad. Water Quality:
The project consists of the redevelopment of existing previously developed parcels and drainage patterns,
absorption rates or surface runoff will not change substantially. Drainage from the existing and future
development is routed into an existing storm drain system located beneath the Ocean Street right of way
thereby avoiding any impact to Surface water.
In accordance with the Hydrology Section 5.2 of the Master EIR 93-01 and the "Coastal Design Criteria for
Proposed Seawall, California Lutheran Complex" report, prepared by Hetherington Engineering, Inc. dated
October 18, 1994, the following mitigation will be incorporated into the project design to avoid signifkant
impacts to water quality resulting from the project: 1) require the installation of protective design measures
to protect structures from the effects of wave action; 2) require the project to umstruct all public facilities
needed to serve the propod development prior to or concurrent with the need it generates; and 3) require
the dedication and improvement of all public right-of-way for public utility and storm drainage facilities to
serve the project. Additionally, prior to approval of a grading permit, the applicant must comply with the
requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimixm 'on System (NPDES) permit. The applicant will be
required to provide the best management practices to reduce dace polIutants to an acceptable level prior to
discharge into storm drain facilities.
5. Air Quality:
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
I- 17 Rev. mws
- h
suspended particulates. These aerosols an the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the
am considend cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General plan will have cumulative si@hnt impacts on the air quality of the region.
San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non -aaaiNmnt basin", any additional air emissioIls
To lessen or mhimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation
measures are recommendtd in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisionS for roadway and
intersection improvements prior to or concunent 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 measurcs have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively si@icant because the project is located within a
"non-attainment basin", therefore, the ''Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Signifhnt 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
Oveniding 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
De pamnent .
6. Circulation
la. 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 pamal 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 Citfs
adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimire the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master ER. These include measures to ensure
the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need, 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of
transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewallcs, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail
systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional
through-traffic ham a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not
within the jurisdictian of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation
mitigation me8surcs have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as
conditions of project approval.
I- 18 Rev. Imps -- -e 4
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumularively signifmnt because of the failure of
intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional thrrrugh-tratfic, therefore, the “Initial Study“
checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is coILsistcnt with the General Plan,
therefore, the prepamion of an EIR is not required because. the rccent certification of Finat Master EIR
9341, by City Cuuncil Rtsolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for
circulation hpacts. 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.
6b,e. The project design does not create hazards to traffic or pedestrian safety. The project includes the half
street .vacation of Chnstiansen Way resulting in a 28’ wide public street with no parking on either side,
and the narrowing of traffic lanes on Grand Avenue to allow far diagonal parking and a 10’ wide
promenade (sidewalk) or linkage to the beach. The project will be conditioned to install sidewalk
improvements on both sides of all streets surrounding the project thereby improving pedestrian circulation
and safety. Both of these roadways are consistent with carlsbad sbndards for public roadways and
intersections.
6c. The project is within the five minute fire service response area required by the Growth Management Ordinance
and emergency access to the site is provided by public streets surrounding the project as required by the Fire
Department. The project will be conditioned to provide the necessary fire hydrant and fire flow capacity prior
to building permit issuance.
6g. There are no rail, waterborne, or air traffic resources within close enough proximity to the project to be
impacted.
7a-e. As identified by the Biological Resources Section 5.4 of the Master Em the project in within the developed
area of the City and consists of the redevelopment of previously disturbed and infill sites containing no
sensitive biological resources. Therefore, the project will have no impact on these resources.
8ac. The Carlsbad by the Sea project consists of the redevelopment of existing, previouSiy developed, infill
parcels with no mineral or agricultural resources in the vicinity. The project represents an expansion of the
existing facility, therefore, energy coflsumption will also inmase. Mitigation such as compliancc with the
Building Code, Title 20, Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code specified by the Electricity and Natural Gas
Section 5.12.1 of the Master EIR to ensure the implementation of energy conservation measures will avoid
the project‘s use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and/or inefficient manner.
9a,c,d. The professional care facility is licensed and regulated by the County Department of Health Services to
ensure that the provision of health care services is safely administered. Risks with respect to accidental
explosion or the release of hazardous substances is not one typically associated with this type of facility. The
facility provides ongoing health care services to elderly resident patients and will not create a health hazard
or expose people to existing sources of health hazards.
9b. The project will not interfere with the City‘s emergency nsponse or evacuation plans. Review by the Fire
Depaxtment to ensure adequate design features are incorporated into the project to pumit emergency access
and response is a condition of project approval.
10. Although the project is a commercial service use, it includes living units for residents along Wbad
Boulevard, which is a circulation element roadway requiring mitigation fa residential projects with existing
I- 19 Rev. 1/30/95
c .- _-
and future projected noise levels above the City standard of 60 CNEL exterior and 45 CNEL interior. Due
to the nature of the project, the 60 cNEL/45 CNEL standard has been imposed. Additionally, the project
consists of substantial mcchanicd equipment planned for the roof of the skilled nursing building (Parcel 1)
and Parcel 3 with noise genuation potential.
The prelrrmnary noise report concludes that the only exterior areas subject to noise levels of 67 dB (existing)
and 70 dB (future) are the Parcel 3 balconies located along carishad Boulevard. However, according to the
City's noise guidelines, the balconies are exempt since they are less than 6 feet deep. To meet the Citfs
interior noise standard of CNEL 45 dB, it will be necessary for certain windows to be sound rated and these
attenuation measures will be required as mitigation for noise impacts.
According to the Relirmnary Noise Report prepared for Carlsbad by the Sea by Charles M. Salter Associates,
Inc. dated 30 June 1994 and January 9, 1995, noise generated by the Parcel 1 roof equipment is attenuated
by the proposed roof screens and baniers to avoid exceeding existing noise levels with one exception. The
existing 60 CNEL noise level along Ocean Street will increase to 61 CNEL as a result of the increased noise
generated by the roof equipment. Mitigation ensuring that noise levels do not exceed the existing noise. levels
at property lines as verified by an acoustical engineer prior to the City's issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
will be required.
11-12. Public Services and Utilities
In accordance with the City's Master Em the project must be consistent with and will be cdtioned to
comply with the City's adopted Growth Management performance StandaKiS for public facilities and services
to ensure that adequate public facilities arc provided prior to or concurrent with development.
13a-b. The project (Parcel 1 and 3) is situated to the west of carisbad Boulevard, a scenic corridor, where the
existing Parcel 1 structure housing the Carlsbad by the Sea professional care facility has existed for 65 years.
It is a locally siflicant historic structure with prominent visual characteristics due to its architecture;
therefore its replication will be necessary. The existing Parcel 1 and 3 structures will be demolished and
redeveloped and the front facade of the Parcel 1 structure and landscaping will be replicated to avoid
significant adverse aesthetic impacts along Carlsbad Boulevard. A public view corridor to the Beach currently
exists between the existing structures on Grand Avenue; therefore, redevelopment of the site will not allow
encroachment into existing view corridors. The Parcel 3 structure south of Grand will increase to three stories,
however, structural articulation, fenestration, and the incorporation of architectural elements from the main
structure will aesthetically enhance the Carlsbad Boulevard street frontage. Additionally, the project includes
minimum 20' landscaped setbacks fram Carlsbad Boulevard with special attention to landscaping at the comers
of Carlsbad Boulevard and Qlristianse n Way/Grand Avenue. The project as0 incorporates the improvement
of a public view axrickx and pedestrian promenade to the beach access west of Ocean Street complete with
enhanced paving, public art, stnet fwniture, and decorative lighting along Grand Avenue. The project also
incorporates all of the Village Design Manual development standards and design guidelines to avoid visually
impacting the area.
14. According to the Cultural Resource Survey and Historical Assessment perfarmed for the project by RECON,
the catlsbad by the Sea facility, formerly "the Califomia-Carlsbad Mind Spring Hotel, is an important
resource area per criteria A and C of CEQA. The enterprise is directly linked to the growth and development
of the City of Carlsbad and to the recognition of this obscure stop on the southern California as a
destination. This resort attracted people from nationwide and also served as a local hub of social events and
community activities during these early years of growth and development. In addition, this property serves
I - 20
an hportant link with one of the most difficult economic episodes in the history of the United States. To
a great extent, what happened to this hotel se~es as an example of what occumd nationally."
Pursuant to CEQA, mitigation is required to reduce si@icant impacts associated with the destruction of the
historically significant fircitity. Mitigation includes the filing of a perfomrance bond with the City to ensure
that mitigation measures and design product are consistent with approved plans. The design of the new facility
will be consistent with the existing historic structure, inasmuch as the facade which is currently present will
be faithfully replicated including size, scale, and architectural style of the former hotel structure. Mitigation
shall also include the historical, photographic, and video documentation of the hotel and property by a
qualified historian which includes an inventory of materials, fixtures, or built-ins to identify items which can
be salvaged for reuse or display in the new facility. Additionally, a rendering of the new facility must be
posted in front of the existing historic structure one month prior to demolition to provide citizens an
opportunity to see the new facility.
The cultural survey concludes that "the results of the cultural resource survey are negative for prehistoric
cultural resource sites, features, or isolates. While the location may have provided a reasonable stopping place
for aboriginal peoples, none of the evidence of these visits have survived. The most likely reason for this,
if sites have existed on this project, is that evidence of buried sites is maskcd by the buildings and
landscaping, or that the sites were destroyed by farming and later development on this property." Mitigation
to avoid archaeological impacts is included which requires a qualified archaeological monitor to be present
during grading to identrfy and assess any buried cultural resource deposits. In the event that important
resource materials are uncovered, a recovery and analysis program will be implemented.
15. No recreational facilities will be impacted by the redevelopment of Carlsbad by the Sea nor will the
V.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
commercial development increase the demand for neighborhod or regional parks.
SOURCE DOCUMENTS - (NOTE: All source documents are on fite in the Planning Department located
at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009, Phone (619) 438-1161).
"Geotechnical Investigation, Carlsbad by the Sea", prepared by Leighton and Associates, dated June 30,1994.
"Coastal Design Criteria for Roposed Seawall, California Lutheran Complex," prepared by Hetherington Eng.,
Inc., dated October 18, 1994.
"Final Master EIR for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update" prepared by the City of Carlsbad Planning
Department and certified September 6, 1994.
"Transportation Analysis for Ciulsbad by the Sea", prepared by Urban Systems Associates, h, dated
December 21, 1994 (Revised February 17, 1995).
"Carlsbad by the Sea Senior Housing preliminary Noise Report", prepand by Charles Salter Associates, inc.
dated 30 June 1994 and 9 January 1995.
"Carlsbad by the Sea Facility Cultural Resource Survey and Historical Assessment", prepared by RECON,
dated July, 1994.
"The Village Design Manual, City of Carlsbad, California", revised April 1988.
"Mello II Segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program", Certified June 1, 1981.
I - 21
The applicant will Ne a perf- bond with the City to ensure that the mitigation measures and design product
are consistent with the mataids on file with the most recent application.
The design of the new facility will be collsistent with the existing historic structure, inasmuch as the hcade which
is currently present will be faithfully replicated in the new design. The size and scale of the new kility should
be consistent with what is currently present. The architectural style of the new facility will be faithful to the
existing structure. The construction materials will be consistent with the current structure; far example, plaster
walls; title roof; window size, style, and placement; and maintenance of a design which includes a porte cochere
and one-story, octagonal room at the two fonvard comers.
The history of the former hotel and property will be documented by a qualified historian'and appropriate
information concerning the acquisition, construction, uses, and activities that took place there will be compiled.
this archival research shall include photographs and other memorabilia which relate to the hotel over time. The
goal of the presentation will be to place the structure into t'ne context of the period and demonstrate how it changed
over time. Attention will also be paid to the connection of this business with the development of Carlsbad.
A photographic documentation of the existing historic building will be completed by a qualified photographer.
Color photographs should be made of the facade and each of the remaining elevations. Interior as well as exterior
shots should be made with special attention to the portions of the structure that arc mare reminiscent of the early
years of use and operation. Photographs of architectural details should also be made.
The photographic documentation should also include the production of an informational video. As with the still
photographs, attention should be paid to recording as much as possible of the look and feel of the building and the
grounds. This video should also include interviews with individuals who may want to reminisce about the structure
or provide some useful information. This should be a professionally produced product and will be kept on file in
the library of the new facility with a copy on file at the City of Carlsbad library.
To augment the still photographs and the video, drawings of certain portions of the existing structure should be
made. These will allow for the presentation of more detail and dimension.
An inventory of materials, fixtures, or built-ins should be made to identify those items which can be salvaged for
adaptive reuse or can be used for display in the new facility.
A rendering of the new bcility will be posted in front of the existing historic building one month prior to any
demolition to provide the citbns of -bad an opportunity to see the new hility. The Tendering will be
provided at sufficient sh and detail to accurately represent the planned structure. This will include some details
of the landscaping design. These exhibits will be available to staff far review at the time of the submittal.
A qualified archaeological monitor will be present during gradjng to identify and assess any buried culturaI
resource deposits. In the event that important cultural resource materials are uncovered, a recovery and analysis
program will be implemented.
1-22 Rev. 1ms
-.
,*p
r
NOlSE
1
Noise generated by the project's roof equipment shall not exceed existing n0ise levels at property hcs surrounding
the project. Mor to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy the applicant shall submit evidence from an
acoustical expert that noise levels at property lines do not exceed the existing noise levels as identified in Charles
Salter and Associates Noise Report dated January 9, 1995 (Source Document #).
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPL1CABI.E)
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
I - 23 Rev. 1popS
PROJECT NAME Carlsbad By-The-- Lutheran Home
APPROVAL DATE: CONDITIONAL NW. DEC.:
FILE NUMBERS: LCPA 95-071CDP 9606/RP 9-K UP 94-IOMDP 9eoSIv scpl
'Ihe following environmental mitigation mc~lsuccs wee incoprated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate ider3ified
en-ntal impnck to a kvel of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation mcasun indicates that this mitigation mcl~llyl~ hrs
been complied With and impkmcnted, and fulfills the City's monitoring rcquinmenk with rtspect to Asscmbly Bill 3180 (Public Resounxs code sodon
2 108 1.6).
Cultural Rtrourccs
1. The applicant dull file I performance
bond in accofdlllct with a co8t dmate
sutxnittcd by a qualified historiur with
the City to cmuc that the mitigation
mcpsuns and design product are
&ent with the materials on fik with
the most recent application.
The design of the new facility will be
consident with the exidng historic
~ICWC, inosnuch as the facade which
is currently pFtawrt will be faithfully
nplicated in the new design. The size
and scale of the facility (front facade)
will be faithful with what is to the
currently present The archited ayle
of the new facility will be faithful to the
existing auctue. The cavstruction
materials will be consistent with the
cutctnt sbuca~e, for example, plasttr
walls, tile roof, window size, syle, and
placement; and mainknance of a design
which includes a porte cochtn and one-
story, octagonal rooms at the two
fonvard comets
2.
Reject
Rojcct
MoaYMing
Department
Planning
Planning
Mitigation Measure
1. Thc history of the former hael and
ppeny will be documcntbd by a
qualified histMinn and appropriate
infomation oonceming the aqukition,
don, wes, ad activities that
took place thtm will be compkd. This
archival research shall include
photographs and 0th mmcmbilia which relate to the hotel over time. Thc
gd of the presentrtion will be to place
the stnrcturc into the cantext of the
period to &me how it changed
over time. Attention will also be paid to
the corvvection of this bupiness with the
&velopmnt of Carlsbad.
A photographic documcntatim of the
existing historic building will be
completed by a qualified photographer.
the faca& and each of the remaining
ekvarions. Interior as well as exterior
shots stull be mrde with special attention to the portions of the sbu~tum
that ut more reminiscent of the early
of architectural details should also be
made.
4.
cdor photoenphs ShOuM be nul& of
years of u& and operation. Pkuographs
Monitorlo g
Tm
Reject
Monitoring
Department
-~
Planning .
Planning
Mitigation Measure
5. Thc photographic documentation shall
also include the production of an
infonnrtio~l video. As with the still photographs, attention shall bc paid to
recording IS much IS passiblc of the
look Ud feel of the kdlding ad the
grounds Thisvideoahrllilroincludc
intenriews with indivibrls who my
want to reminisce about brc et~c~ue or
provi&aom~fulinforrmtion 'Ibis
product and will be kept on file in bre
library of the new facility with a copy
on fik at the culsbd City Library.
Shdl be 8 professlionrlly producad
6. To augment the still photoenplw ud the
video, dnwings of certain poniorrs of
the existing strwurc shall be made.
Thca will allow the presentation of
mom detail and dimension.
7. An inventory of materials, fixtures, or
built-ins shall be made to identify rhoec
item which can be dvaged for adaptive
reuse or an be ueed for display in the
new frcility.
8. A nndering of the new facility will be
pad in front of the exWng historic
building one month prior to any
demolition to provide the citizens of
CUlSbdm~tytOacethc~W
facility. 'Ihe rendering will be provi&d
at sufficitnt sizc ud detail to accmtely
repeaenttheplpMbdstNc~. This
will includc aome details of the
landecrping design. These exhibits will
be available to staff for review at the
time of dmittal.
Monitoring 1 Monhorhg
Typc DeDartrncnt
Project
Project
Planning
Planning
Planning
Mitigation Measure
9.. A qualified archaeological monitor will
be prcatnt during grading to identify and
assess any buried cultural rcsmme
deposits In the event that important
cultural resource mrterirls are
uncovered, a recovery ud analysis
prognm will be impkd
11. Sound rad windows in accordarm with
chsrles M. Salter Associates Rcliminary
Noise Report dated June 30,1994, hll
be instrlkd at desigMtad locations to
satisfy the atfs 45 dBA CNEL interior noisestandard. Wherewindowsare
mquirad to be \plope~bk or kept closed
in order to meet the interior noise
smduds, mechanical vcntilarion and
coding, if nec+sspty, shall be provided
to maintain a habitable envirauncnt K
Project
Project
Type * Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dcp - Depamnent, or Agency, rcspowibk for monitoring a particular mitigation measure.
Shown on Plans = When mitigaticm measure is shown on plans, this column will bt initialed 4 dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation meosurc has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated
J. \