HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-09-06; Design Review Board; Resolution 228L
\.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 228
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADDENDUM, AND
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM FOR A LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
AMENDMENT, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT,
AND REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW THE
REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CARLSBAD BY THE SEA
LUTHERAN HOME LOCATED AT 2855 CARLSBAD
BOULEVARD AND 201 GRAND AVENUE.
APPLICANT: CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN
HOME
CASE NO: LCPA 95-07/CDP 94-06/RP-94-06
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 16th day of August, 1995,
and on the 6th day of September, 1995, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by
law to consider said request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Design Review Board considered all factors
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and addendum.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review
Board as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design
Review Board hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and addendum according to Exhibit “ND”, dated March 6, 1995,
and “PII”, dated March 6, 1995 attached hereto and made a part hereof, and
the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. The Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and
considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and addendum for RP 94-06 and
CDP 94-06, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and said
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
comments thereon, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, prior to
recommending approval of the project. Based on the EIA Part-I1 and comments
thereon, the Design Review Board finds that there is no substantial evidence the
project will have a significant effect on the environment and hereby recommends
approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and addendum.
2. The Design Review Board does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and addendum for LCPA 95-07, CDP 94-06, RP 94-06, and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared in accordance with
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines, and
the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad.
3. The City’s MEIR found that air quality and circulation impacts are significant and
adverse; therefore, the Council adopted a statement of overriding considerations.
The project is consistent with the General Plan and as to those effects, no additional
environmental document is required.
PlanninP Conditions:
CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. The applicant shall file a performance bond in accordance with a cost estimate
submitted by a qualified historian with the City to ensure that the mitigation
measures and design product are consistent with the materials on file with the most
recent application.
2. 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 in the
new design. The size and scale of the facility (front facade) will be faithful 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, for example, plaster walls, tile roof, window size, style, and placement; and
maintenance of a design which includes a porte cochere and one-story, octagonal
rooms at the two forward corners.
3. 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 the context of the period
to demonstrate how it changed over time. Attention will also be paid to the
connection of this business with the development of Carlsbad.
4. 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 shall be made with
special attention to the portions of the structure that are more reminiscent of the
DRB RES0 NO. 228 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
early years of use and operation. Photographs of architectural details should also
be made.
The photographic documentation shall also include the production of an
informational video. As with the still photographs, attention shall be paid to
recording as much as possible of the look and feel of the building and the grounds.
This video shall also include interviews with individuals who may want to reminisce
about the structure or provide some useful information. This shall 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 Carlsbad City Library.
To augment the still photographs and the video, drawings of certain portions of the
existing structure shall be made. These will allow for the presentation of more detail
and dimension.
An inventory of materials, fixtures, or built-ins shall 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 facility will be posted in front of the existing historic building
one month prior to any demolition to provide the citizens of Carlsbad an opportunity
to see the new facility. The rendering will be provided at sufficient size and detail
to accurately represent the planned structure. This will include some details of the
landscaping design. These exhibits will be available to staff for review at the time
of submittal.
A qualified archaeological monitor will be present during grading to identify and
assess any buried cultural resource deposits. In the event that important cultural
resource materials are uncovered, a recovery and analysis program will be
implemented.
10. Noise generated by the project’s roof equipment shall not exceed existing noise levels
at property lines surrounding the project. Prior 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 incorporated herein by
reference.
11. Sound rated windows in accordance with Charles M. Salter Associates Preliminary
Noise Report dated June 30,1994, shall be installed at designated locations to satisfy
the City’s 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. Where windows are required to be
unopenable or kept closed in order to meet the interior noise standards, mechanical
ventilation and cooling, if necessary, shall be provided to maintain a habitable
environment. ....
DFU3 RES0 NO. 228 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design
Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of September, 1995
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Vice-Chairperson Welshons, Board Members Savary and Vessey
Board Members Marquez and Noble
KIM WEkSHONS, Vice-Chairperson
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
ATTEST
//
EVAN BECKER
Housing and Redevelopment Director
DRB RES0 NO. 228 -4-
.4
L
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Carlsbad By The Sea
2855 Carlsbad Boulevard
Carlsbad, CA 92008
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Carlsbad By The Sea project will consist of the redevelopment
of the existing professional care facility located north and south of
Grand Avenue in the Village Redevelopment Zone, R-3 and Beach
Area Overlay Zones, and the development of a 12,600 square foot
ocean front parcel directly west of the main stwcture on Ocean
Street in the R-3 and Beach Area Overlay Zones. All three parcels
will be developed with new sttuctures, however, the front facade of
the main structure will be replicated. The existing professional care
facility consists of 102 living units, 59 skilled nursing beds, and
ancillary services. The redeveloped facility (including all three
parcels) will consist of 159 living units, 33 skilled beds, 2 visitor
units, a therapy center with pool, ancillary facilities, and
subterranean parking below each of the structures providing
parking for 229 cars. The project also includes a partial street
vacation of Christiansen Way from 80 feet of right-of-way to 40 feet
of right-of-way, and the improvement of a 57 space public parking
lot within the existing Garfield Street right-of-way.
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
Mitigated Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on
the environment) is herebyksued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file
in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on 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 30 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at
(61 9) 438-1 161, extension 4477.
DATED: MARCH 6, 1995
MICHAEL J. HODMI&R
CASE NO: RP 94-06/CDP 94-06/CUP 94-10/ Planning Director
CASE NAME:
HDP 94-08/V 94-01/PR 6.1 19
CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME
PUBLISH DATE: MARCH 10,1995
Mvd
@ 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad. California 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-1 161
ADDENDUM TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATED MARCH 6,1995
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BY THE SEA LUTHERAN HOME
CASE NO: LCPA 95-07/RP 94-06/CDP 94-06/CUP 94-10/HDP 94-08/V 94-01/J?R 6.119
la. Land Use
The Environmental Impact Assessment completed for the project specified that no
ground floor visitor commercial use is included in the project and that the visitor
commercial requirement does not apply to Carlsbad by the Sea since no change to the
existing use is proposed. Coastal Commission comments received in June, 1995,
indicated that to be consistent with the V-R Coastal Program, it is necessary to process
a Local Coastal Program Amendment to exempt the redevelopment of Carlsbad by the
Sea from the visitor commercial requirement. Staff agreed and the project now
includes a resolution recommending approval of a Local Coastal Program Amendment.
The project has been revised to require retail commercial uses within a 3,200 square
foot ground floor area of the Parcel B structure fronting on Carlsbad Boulevard. The
required parking for the retail commercial area is provided onsite in the subterranean
garage and signage for the commercial uses must be consistent with the Village
Design Manual sign standards. As revised, the project will result in greater retail
continuity to serve visitors along Carlsbad Boulevard between Carlsbad Village Drive
and Grand Avenue and increase the inventory of visitor commercial uses. Therefore,
greater consistency with the requirements of the Village LCP and Village Design
Manual is achieved thereby further reducing environmental impacts already identified
as less than significant.
6d. Transporation/Circulat ion
The revised Christiansen Way roadway design will reduce the area of proposed street
vacation and replace 12 of the public parking spaces lost along the roadway due to the
previous driveway access ramp design. This change will not result in additional safety
hazard impacts and will result in a greater net increase in available onstreet public
parking than previously reported. The revised project will therefore improve beach
area parking and result in a less than significant circulation/parking environmental
impact requiring no additional mitigation.
ENVIRONMENTAL 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 SEA LUTHERAN HOME
2. APPLICANT CARLSBAD LUTHERAN HOMES
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT:
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMlTTED: JULY 19.1994
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Carlsbad by the Sea Droiect will consist of the redeveloDment of the
existing Drofessional care facility located north and south of Grand Avenue in the VillaPe RedeveloDment
Zone, R-3 and Beach Area Overlay Zones. and the development of a 12.600 sauare foot Ocean front Darcel
directly west of the main structure on Ocean Street in the R-3 and Beach Area Overlay Zones. All three
parcels will be develotxd with new structures. however. the front facade of the main structure will be
replicated. The existing Drofessional care facility consists of 102 living units. 59 skilled nursing beds. and
ancillary services. The redeveloEd facility (including all three r>arcels) will consist of 159 living units,
33 skilled nursing beds. 2 visitor units. a therapy center with mol. ancillary facilities. and subterranean
parking below each of the structures providing ~arkiny for 229 cars. The proiect also includes a uartial
street vacation of Christiansen Way from 80 feet of rightaf-way to 40 feet of right-of-way. and the
improvement of a 57 mace Dublic ~arking lot within the existing Garfield Street right-of-way.
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 - X Transportation/Circulation - Public Services
- Population and Housing - Biological Resources - Utilities and Service Systems
- Geological Problem - Energy and Mineral Resources - Aesthetics
- Water - Hazards - X Cultural Resources
- X Air Quality - X Noise - Recreation
- Mandatory Findings of Significance
1-1 Rev. 1/30{9S
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 prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signifcant 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 sign.Ecant 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 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, if the
effect is a "potentially signifcant impact" or "potentially signifcant unless mitigated." An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTMTIGATE NEGATIVE DECLARATION is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signifcant 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 EIR / MJTXGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards
and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR I MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
PLANNING D Date
1-2 Rev. 1130195
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GULDELINES, 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 Signifcant 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 si&icant level.
"Potentially Signifcant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant.
Based on an "EM-Part 11", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the
environment, but potentially signifcant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ER 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 significant 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 significant, and those mitigation measures are
agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Sigmfhnt
Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be
prepared.
When "Potentially Signifcant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR
if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EXR pursuant to applicable standards and
the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Ovemding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that
earlier EIR.
1-3 Rev. 1/30/95
An EIR must be prepared if ”Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the
following circumstances: (1) the potentially si&icant 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 Ovemdihg Considerations“ for the significant 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 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 signifrcant.
1-4 Rev. 1/30/95
Issues (and Suppotting information Sources):
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
Conflict with general plan designation
or zoning? (Source #3, #7)
Potentially
signifkant
Patentially Unless LessThan
Significant Mitigation Significant No
mwt Incorporated Impact Impact
v
Conflict with applicable environmental plans
or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? (#3, #7, #8) - - - X -
Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (Source #7) - - - X -
Affect agricultural resources or operations
(e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts
from incompatible land uses)? (Source #3, #8) - _I - - X
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement
of an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)? (Source #7)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSKNG. Would the propod.
Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (Source #3)
Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects
in an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? ( 1 -
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( 1 -
1-5 Rev. 1130195
Potentially
Significant
Potentially UIlleSS LessThan Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the
proposal result in or expose people to potential
impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (Source #1)
Seismic ground shaking? (Source #1)
Seismic ground failure, including
liquefaction? (Source #1)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( )
Landslides or mudflows? ( )
Erosion, changes in topography or
unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading, or fill? ( )
Subsidence of the land? ( )
Expansive soils? ( )
Unique geologic or physical features? ( )
N. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ( )
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? ( Source # 2)
1-6 Rev. 1/30/!95
hues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Discharge into surface waters or other
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)? ( )
Changes in the amount of dace water
in any water body? ( )
Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? ( )
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)
Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater? (Source #3)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (Source #3)
Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for
public water supplies? (Source #3)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
Potentially
significant
Potentially UdeSS LessThan Signi,ficant Mitigation Significant NO
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source
#3) - X -
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Source #3) - -
or cause any change in climate? ( ) - - Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
Create objectionable odors? ( ) - -
X -
X -
X -
X -
X -
1-7 Rev. 1/30/95
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significaut
Potentially UdesS LessThan
Significant Mitigation Significant No
hhct Incorporated hpac t hpac t
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Source
#3 & #4)
Hazards to safety from design features
(e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (Source
#4)
Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? (Source #3)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or
off-site? (Source #4)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists? (Source #4)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (Source #3)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic
impacts? (Source #3)
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? (Source #3) -
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage
trees)? (Source #3)
1-8 Rev. 1/30/95
hes (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentidy
SiUifii
Potentially UdeSS
significant Mitigation
h*t locorporad
No
Impact
c) Locally designated natural communities
(e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source #3) - - X -
X -
X -
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (Source #3)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration
comdors? (Source #3)
Vm. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? (Source #3) X -
X - 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 risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited to:
oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation? (Source #3) - -
Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source
#3) - -
The creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard? (Source #3)
Exposure of people to existing sources
of potential health hazards? (Source #3)
1-9 Rev. 1130195
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
e) Increase fue 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 #5)
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 substantial alterations to the following
utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (Source #3)
b) Communications systems? (Source #3)
Potentially
Significant Potentially Unless LesSThan
Significant Mitigation Significant No
h@ct Incmporated Impact Impact
I- 10 Rev. 1/30/95
Potentially
Sinificant
Unless
Mitigation hwated
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially
significant
h@t
Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities? (Source #3)
Sewer or septic tanks? (Source #3)
Storm water drainage? (Source #3)
Solid waste disposal? (Source #3)
Local or regional water supplies? (Source #3)
Xm. 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 #3)
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 #6)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses
within the potential impact area? (Source #6)
I- 11 Rev. 1/30/95
hes (and Supporting Momation Sources):
Potentially
Significant I
Potentially UdeSS hTban
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Im@t Incolporated Imwt Impact
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) hcrease 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.
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?
Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects)
Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
X -
X -
I- 12 Rev. 1/30/95
j;ND[. 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:
Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
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.
Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorpomted or refmed from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the
project.
I- 13 Rev. I/30/95
DSCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The existing Carlsbad by the Sea Lutheran Home consists of multiple structures on two of three separate
parcels: Parcel 1 is a 2.3 acre parcel fronting Carlsbad 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 City's cultural resource survey. It was constructed, partially of unreinforced 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 from the estimated cost 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 SETTING
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, Christiansen 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 different 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 from 7 feet msl at the bottom of the coastal bluff to 44 msl along Ocean Street. This
Will lot has never been 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 KI segment of Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A. Environmental Impact Discussion
I - 14 Rev. 1/30/95
la. Land Use:
The project consists of the redevelopment of the existing professional cafe facility which is located in areas
designated by the General Plan for both Village Redevelopment (YR) and high density residential (RH). Uses
permitted by right and conditionally in these designated areas include commercial, 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 II 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-1960’s. We 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 regulating uses in the VR zone only,
does not specify 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 maximum 35’ building height allowed along the
Carlsbad Boulevard frontage (36.5 feet) and adjacent to the driveway ramp along Christiansen Way. As
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’ maxirnum
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 circumstances 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 property 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
Christiansen Way public right of way. Granting an exemption will not contradict 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 signifcant 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 39’ to the top of roof along the western elevation. The
western portion of the structure is also three levels. A variance to height standards is required at this location,
however, the additional height will not result in a signXcant adverse environmental 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 encroachment, and the structure will be the same
height or lower than existing structures adjacent to the north and south.
I- 15 Rev. 1/30/95
Ib. The project is located within the Mello II and Village Redevelopment segments of Carlsbad's Local Coastal
Program. Parcel 2 located west of Ocean Street and one third of parcel 1 located east of Ocean Street are
subject to Mello II policies requiring bluff stability, avoidance of liquefaction problems associated with seismic
hazards, "stringline" setbacks, access along shorelines, and archaeological or paleontological resources.
Compliance with the recommendations of the Leighton and Associates' Geotechnical Investigation for these
parcels will avoid conflicts 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 resources are
unlikely to be present. Although no seawall is proposed for the development, a 7' high foundation wall will
provide the necessary protection from wave action during high tide and severe storms.
The remainder of Parcel 1 and Parcel 3 are subject to the Village Redevelopment segment of the LCP (Village
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).
IC. Carlsbad by the Sea is an existing professional care 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 currently
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 restriction. Parcel 3 located
south of Grand is completely within the VR zone permitting 35' in building height, however, a terraced design
will be provided to create a transition from three stories to two stories along the Garfield Street frontage to
ensure 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 from 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 smaller Scale development and uses
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 resources or operations will be impacted by the proposed redevelopment project which is
located in the downtown Village area and has been surrounded by development for many years.
le. The project includes the partial vacation of Christiansen Way between Carlsbad Boulevard and Ocean Street,
however, access to a Garfield Street public parking lot and the beach will still be provided within 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 Rev. 1/30/95
2a. Although the project represents an increase of 57 living units with the potential to double the current Carlsbad
by the Sea resident population which will represent a small increase in the local population, development of
the facility will not result in changes to population projections since projections are based upon residential
dwelling units. Professional care facilities are commercial service in nature and are therefore not considered
in the City's population projections.
2b. The redevelopment project will increase in size, however, it will not induce substantial growth in the area 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 conditional
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 Geotechnical Investigation conducted by Leighton and
Associates in June, 1994, for the project will ensure that there are less than si@icant 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 pattern,
absorption rates or surface runoff will not change substantially. Drainage fiom 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 significant
impacts to water quality resulting fiom the project: 1) require the installation of protective design measures
to protect structures from the effects of wave action; 2) require the project to construct all public facilities
needed to serve the proposed 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 Elimination System ("DES) permit. The applicant will be
required to provide the best management practices to reduce surface pollutants 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. 1/30/95
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. 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.
These include:
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
Ovemding 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.
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 partial intersections will be severely impacted by
regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all
freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the
implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City's
adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or mininzize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure
the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop altemative modes of
transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail
systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional
through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not
within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation
mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as
conditions of project approval.
I- 18 Rev. 1/30/95
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively signifhnt because of the failure of
intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the "Initial Study"
checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan,
therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR
93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations'' for
circulation impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects
covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental
review of circulation impacts is required.
6b,e. The project design does not create hazards to traffic or pedestrian safety. The project includes the half
street vacation of Christiansen 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 for diagonal parking and a 1U 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 Standards 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.
7ae. As identified by the Biological Resources Section 5.4 of the Master EIR, the project in within the developed
area of the City and consists of the redevelopment of previously disturbed and Mill sites containing no
sensitive biological resources. Therefore, the project will have no impact on these resources.
8a-c. The Carlsbad by the Sea project consists of the redevelopment of existing, previously developed, infill
parcels with no mineral or agricultural resources in the vicinity. The project represents an expansion of the
existing facility, therefore, energy consumption will also increase. Mitigation such as compliance 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 response or evacuation plans. Review by the Fire
Department to ensure adequate design features are incorporated into the project to permit 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 Carlsbad
Boulevard, which is a circulation element roadway requiring mitigation for residential projects with existing
I- 19 Rev. 1/30/95
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 mechanical equipment planned for the roof of the skilled nursing building (Parcel 1)
and Parcel 3 with noise generation potential.
The preliminary 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 Carlsbad 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 Preliminary 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 Pard 1 roof equipment is attenuated
by the proposed roof screens and barriers 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 EIR, the project must be consistent with and will be conditioned to
comply with the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards for public facilities and services
to ensure that adequate public facilities are provided prior to or concurrent with development.
13a-b. The project (Parcel 1 and 3) is situated to the west of Carlsbad 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 significant 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 cmently
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 from Carlsbad Boulevard with special attention to landscaping at the comers
of Carlsbad Boulevard and Christiansen Way/Grand Avenue. The project also incorporates the improvement
of a public view corridor and pedestrian promenade to the beach access west of Ocean Street complete with
enhanced paving, public art, street furniture, 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 performed for the project by RECON,
the Carlsbad by the Sea facility, formerly "the California-Carlsbad Mineral 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 coast 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 Rev. 1/30/95
15.
V.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
as an important 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 serves as an example of what occurred nationally."
Pursuant to CEQA, mitigation is required to reduce si@icant impacts associated with the destruction of the
historically significant facility. Mitigation includes the filing of a perfomce 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, fmtures, 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 masked by the buildings and
landscaping, or that the sites were destroyed by farming and later development on this property." Mitigation
to avoid archaeologicql impacts is included which requires a qualified archaeological monitor to be present
during grading to identify and assess any buried cultural resource deposits. In the event that important
resoufce materials are uncovered, a recovery and analysis program will be implemented.
No recreational facilities will be impacted by the redevelopment of Carlsbad by the Sea nor will the
commercial development increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks.
SOURCE DOCUMENTS - (NOTE: All source documents are on file 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 Proposed 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 Carlsbad by the Sea", prepared by Urban Systems Associates, Inc, dated
December 21, 1994 (Revised February 17, 1995).
"Carlsbad by the Sea Senior Housing Prelimimry Noise Report", prepared 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 IT Segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program", Certifkd June 1, 1981.
I - 21 Rev. 1/30/95
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES CIF APPLICABLE)
Cultural Resources:
The applicant will file a performance bond with the City to ensure that the mitigation measures and design product
are consistent with the materials on file with the most recent application.
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 in the new design. The size and scale of the new facility 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; for example, plaster
walls; title Toof; window size, style, and placement; and maintenance of a design which includes a porte cochere
and one-story, octagonal rooms at the two forward 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 the 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 are more 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, fmtures, 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 facility will be posted in fiont of the existing historic building one month prior to any
demolition to provide the citizens of Carlsbad an opportunity to see the new facility. The rendering will be
provided at sufficient size and detail to accurately represent the planned structure. This will include some details
of the landscaping design. These exhibits will be available to staff for review at the time of the submittal.
A qualified archaeological monitor will be present during grading to identify and assess any buried cultural
resource deposits. In the event that important cultural resource materials are uncovered, a recovery and analysis
program will be implemented.
I - 22 Rev. 1/30/95
NOISE
Noise generated by the project's roof equipment shall not exceed existing noise levels at property lines surrounding
the project. Prior 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 #5).
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (TF APPLICABLE)
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWElD THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
I - 23 Rev. 1/30/95
ENVIRONMrAL MITIGATION MONITORING C'-CKLIST Page of &
ENVIRONME-AL MITIGATION MONITORING C-CKLIST Page 2 of 4
f
a a E
ENVIRONMEVAL MITIGATION MONITORING CF-CKLIST Page 2 of 4
c
ENVIRONMR- iL MITIGATION MONITORING CT-7KLIST Page 4 of 4
n
d a
5
4
. 3
3
lune 15, 1995
California Coastai Commission
San Diego Coast Area
31 1 1 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 200
Sari Diego, CA 92108-1725 - ._ --
Attention: Mr. Bill Ponder
SUBJECT: RP 9406/eDP 94-06 - MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE CARUBAD BY THE SEA PROJECT
Dear Mr. Ponder.
Thank you for your comments following the review of the subject mitigated negative declaration. In
accordance with CEQA Guidelines, the City of Carlsbad offers the following responses to your
comments and concerns:
Villane LCP
1. The application for Local coastat Program Amendment to exclude Carlsbad by the Sea hm
the visitor serving ground floor requirement will include analysis to show that existing visitor
serving commercial uses are adequate and that adequate land is rcserved to meet foreseeable
future demands for visitor commercial uses.
As you are aware, the City is currently reviewing a greft Village Master Plan (Village Design
Manual) in which appropriate land uses in the various Mcts of the Village have been
analyzed As a result of our review of land uses in the Village, the recommendation by staff
and the Village Master Plan Advisory Committee regarding the status of existing institutional
uses such as Carhbad by the Sea located in the &ad Zone will be: 1) that they am
appropriate and desirable uses at their cumnt locations; and 2) they will not be subject to the
visitor serving requirement.
2. With regard to the 35' maximum building height stadad, the currcn! Village Design Manual
also specifics that Iho pxemm 'oq shall be wed under the redevelopment plan which
would ............... increase the height limit unless the exemption is approved by .the coastal
Commissio~' This provision seems to indicate that height exemptions can be granted by the
Coastal Commissioh I was unable to locate a requirement for a development disposition
agreement in the Village Design Manual.
.
Mello TI LCP
3. The Mello IX LmaI Caxstal Program docis-pmvide for variances in Attachment 5, Item 5, which
amends Chapter 21.50 (Variances) of the Zoning ordinance to include provisions for variances in the coastal zone.
,-_ -. .^^ - A ~n7~ I -C D=I-=,= nvq,,- - rqrirkrr~ ~--I.s--- - n-nnn 4c-c
4.
5.
6.
7.
I RP WCDP 9446
"E IS, 19954
CARLSBAD BY THE SEA
PAGE 2
The project doe not include any sites containing historic public use. Parcel 2 is a privately
owned and fenced viewing area The parcel has no public beach access, and the applicant's
environmental analysis indicates that no access to the beach has ever been documented.
The Parcel 2 foundation walI/seawall location discussed in your letter is CoIISistent with
surrounding projects approved under existing regulations by the Coastal commission (Cr 90-
07/St. Tropu condominiums). The structure adheres to the Stringline stback requirement
thereby providing the required lateral beach access, and is located 'in-line" with existing
seawalls to the northwest and south& in order to prevent accelerated erosion or scow within
corner areas between adjacent walls as recornended by the WELVC w-up analysis performed
for the project by Hetherington Engineering, hc., Geotechnid Consultants.
As stated above, the project adheres to the structural stringline setback thereby providing the
necessary hterai beach access dong the shoreline. There are existing public access stairways
within 60' of the project to the north and south providing public access to the beach from Grand
Avenue and Qvistiansen Way. The project includes a public parking lot to be constructed
within the unimproved Garfield Street right of way and street impvements which include curb,
gutter, and sidewalk on both sides of Ocean Street and Qlnstransen Way. These improvements
will formalize parking in the area and improve pedestrian and vehicular access to the beach.
..
The unimproved Garfreld Strea right of way proposed to be improved as a public parking lot
was considered as a parking reservoir by the Transportatim Analysis performed for the project
by Urban Systems Associates. Since no formatized parking spaces exist within the unimproved
right of way, the analysis includes the number of padel parking spaces which could be
accommodated along both sides of the right of way in the Uristing parking space inventory.
By improving the right of way as a parking lot, a net increase of 26 spaces in this Wormal ana
is achieved and considered as partial replacement parking for the reduction of 38 parking spaces
n Way. Except as mitigation ntcessary to replace on-street parking, the located on Chmtmsc
improvement of Garfrcld Strat is not required for this project.
..
If you have any questions tx comments concerning the above, please contact me at (619) 438-1 161,
extension 4477.
Sincerely,
ANNE HYSONG
..
Assistant Planner
c: Tony Lawson
QvisDeCerbo
Gary Wayne .'
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SAN DIEGO COAST AREA
3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE 200
SAN DIEGO, CA 921081725
(619) 521-6036
Ann Hysong Ci ty of Carl sbad
2075 Las Palmas Carl sbad, CA 92008
Re: Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Tarlsbad by the Sea" Project
Dear Ms. Hysong,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above. Staff has reviewed the subject document and has the following coments.
neral Comments/Villaae Redevelopment Arw
Regarding the main element of the project on Parcel 1, the "Vlllage Design Manual" of the certified Village Redevelopment Local Coastal Program (LCP) requires in Subarea 5 that the entire ground floor of all projects must be devoted to visitor commercial uses, and that mixed use projects which do not meet this criteria require approval by the Coastal Commission or the Executive Director as a major or minor amendment to the Local Coastal Program. In either instance, an amendment must be submitted to and approved by the Coastal Commission before it is effective. The above document finds the proposed project would not be subject to the above provision because the proposed intensification of the existing non-conforming commercial use does not
constitute a "change in use" that would trigger a Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA). However, staff's position is that while not a change in use, the project represents- "new development'' because of the structures' total demolition and subsequent intensification of the professional care facility. Therefore, since the redevelopment does not provide a visitor commercial use on the ground floor, staff believes the project should be subject to the LCP amendment requi rement. redevelopment is directly contrary to the planning goals of the certified The conti nuance of non-conformi ng uses through
I rD Lbl .
Section 30221 of the Coastal Act provides that oceanfront lands suitable for recreational use shall be protected unless both present and foreseeable future
demands for publ i c or commercial recreational activities i s a1 ready adequately provided for in the area. Section 30222 provides that private lands suitable for vi si tor-servi ng commerci a1 faci 1 i ti es designed to enhance publ i c access opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over other land uses except coastal dependent and agricultural land uses. How can the proposed intensi fication and redevelopment of an existing non-vi si tor-serving use on this site be found consistent with the certified LCP and the above Coastal Act sections? Section 30221 states that if adequate commercial recreational activities to meet current and future demands are provided in the area, other lower priority land uses can be allowed. Thus, staff believes the amendment must address this issue and document both the present kinds and extent of vi si tor commercial uses in the planning area and provide the necessary assurances and rationale that adequate land has been reserved to
_-
Ann Hysong June 7, 1995 Page 2
meet foreseeable future demands for visitor commercial uses. As a LCPA filing requirement, the amendment would need to document the nature and amount of visitor-serving uses in €he imnediate vicinity, as well as those within Subarea 5 and the Village Redevelopment Area in particular. Depending on the scope of any prospective LCP amendment, it might be necessary to present such documentation on Carlsbad's coastal zone in general.
The document indicates a height variance (36.5 feet) will be given above the certifled Village Redevelopment Area LCP standard of 35 feet as mitigation for demolishing a locally significant historic structure on Parcel 1. The document also states that the intent of the Village Design Manual is "to provide general design guidelines and regulations rather than strict Cheightl standards". However, the manual states that the maximum height for new buildings within the village area shall not exceed 35 feet, unless a development disposition agreement is approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. consistent with the above LCP provision. It must be demonstrated that the proposed height variance is
The proposed Parcel 2 residential structure, located west of Ocean Street on the coastal bluff, also requires a height variance (proposing 39' high on the coastal bluff with an LCP-specified 35' height limit). The document justifies the variance stating an existing view corridor will be retained, the structure will be consistent with "stringline" structural setbacks, and will be the same height or lower than existing structures to the north and south. However, the certified Mello I1 Local Coastal Program (LCP) does not provide for variances; thus, it must be demonstrated how the project can be found consistent with the LCP .
This 12,500 sq. ft. parcel overlooks the beach, is residentially undeveloped and is used as a private viewing area of the professional care facility. Development on the parcel includes a concrete stairway, benches and fencing. The certi fl ed Me1 lo I1 segment contains a Coastal Shore1 i ne Development Overlay Zone (C-D) which identifies access requirements on sites containing historic public use, Including siting development in a way that does not interfere with existing public use or providing an area of equivalent public
access in the Immediate vicinity of the site which will accommodate the same type and intensity of use as may have existed. The document should address how the above LCP provision would be applied to the proposed development of Parcel 2.
The ordinances of the C-D contain detai led regulations regarding the construction of revetments, seawalls, cliff-retaining walls, and other similar shoreline structures. structures only when they are required to serve coastal dependent uses or to protect ggistinq structures or public beaches in danger from erosion, and when designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local sand supply. The document notes the coastal bluff proposed for development on Parcel 2 is heavily impacted by erosion due to wave action, and the bluff would be supported by a 20' high retaining wall constructed beneath the structure
The ordinances allow for the construction of such
.1. . - Ann Hysong June 7, 1995 Page 3 .
thereby protecting it from further erosion. The document also notes that although no seawall is proposed, a 7' high foundation wall will provide the necessary protectton from wave action during high tides and severe storms.
The foundation wall appears to function as a seawall which as noted above can only be approved to protect existing development, not new development as proposed. To comply with this LCP requirement, new development must be sited and designed to not require shoreline protection. The Comnission has found seawalls cause adverse impacts to shoreline processes and public access. In siting new development without the need for shoreline protection, existing site conditions must be identified and a geotechnical evaluation/wave runup analysis performed. The document must address this issue, and must also address what a1 ternatives to the proposed foundation wal l/shoreli ne protective work were examined.
The C-D ordinance also states that as a condition of approval, permitted shorel ine structures may be required to replenish the beach with imported sand, and further, permi tted shorel i ne structures shall be required to provide public access. lateral access along the beach. The above document is silent on the project's need to provide
The project proposes the half street vacation of Christiansen Way, resulting in the elimination of 38 existing parallel parking spaces which the public has used to park near the beach. To offset this adverse impact to public access, the document states a small net increase in public parking will be provided in the immediate vicinity of the project through the improvement of the Garfield Street unimproved right-of-way and the addition of diagonal parking on the south side of Grand Avenue (the narrowing of traffic lanes on Grand Avenue is proposed to allow for diagonal parking and a 10 foot wide promenade to the beach). However, Garfield Street is an existing unimproved parking reservoir, and, as such, the document should establish why it should be accepted as bonafi de replacement parking.
I apologize for this late response. We also realize that the scope of our comments goes beyond speci fic- envi ronmental 1 ssues broader explanation of coastal concerns. We would City in determining the most appropriate action on have any questions, please contact me at the above
but wished to provide a like to coordinate with the the project site. If you number.
BP: bp(0236A) cc: Tony Lawson
bas tal Planner
,. 4