HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-03-02; Housing & Redevelopment Commission; 306; Join Hands Save-A-Life Youth FacilityL Gmw (i3
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION -AGENDA BILL
AB# ~30 6 TITLE- .
MTG. 3/2 h-7 JOIN HANDS SAVE-A-LIFE YOUTH FACILITY
DEPT. CA 1 CASE NO.: RP 97-03
DEPT. HD.
CITY ATTY.
CITY MGRS-,
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
If the Housing and Redevelopment Commission concurs, its action is to adopt Resolution No. 307 amending Resolution Nos. 305 and 306 approving a major redevelopment permit (RP
97-03) for the Join Hands Save-A-Life Youth Facility .
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On April 7, 1998 and May 12, 1998, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission reviewed
and considered an application for a major redevelopment permit requested for a youth facility by
Join Hands Save-A-Life, a non-profit organization. The Commission remanded the project as
proposed for redesign, reduction in the size and bulk of the building, and to reduce the number
of requested variances. At its meeting of February 2, 1999, the Commission reviewed and
approved the applicant’s revised proposal, subject to a number of conditions to ensure its
design quality, compatibility with the neighborhood, and its primary use shall be for regular and
routine activities designed for low income youths and teens. The amended resolution is
attached for your review and approval. It includes the following conditions added by the
Commission at the hearing:
l The facility is limited to one (1) floor of 6,175 square feet. Additional space or second floor
requires a separate permit and a parking demand analysis.
l The facility is to be used primarily for regular and routine activities designed for low income
youth and teens.
l The front portion of the facility is to be redesigned to increase its articulation and visual
appearance.
l The facility is not approved for any type of residential use.
l Adults who work in the facility must satisfactorily complete a background check.
The Commission also made it clear that when the applicant applies for or is granted CDBG
funding or any other public financial assistance by the City of Carlsbad or the Redevelopment
Agency, applicant should be aware that as a condition to receiving such funding, conditions and
covenants will be placed against those funds ensuring that they will be used only for the
purpose granted and that the funds shall be secured by a deed of trust, lien or other
appropriate mechanism that runs with the land as a condition to such grant.
FISCAL IMPACT:
In past years, the City has approved this proposed facility for public facility (acquisition and
construction) funding through the federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Program. To date, the City has approved the Join Hands organization for $82,000 in CDBG
funds for property acquisition for a new youth facility. The site of the proposed project was
purchased by Join Hands with the noted CDBG funds. In addition, the City Council has
approved $217,000 to date in CDBG funds for construction of a new youth facility. /
Agenda Bill # 306
Page 2
No expenditure of funds from the City of Carlsbad General Fund or the Carlsbad
Redevelopment Agency is authorized by approval of the subject permit. While the project itself
will have very little financial impact on the City or the Redevelopment Agency due to the non-
profit status of the applicant (Join Hands), the project may serve as a catalyst for other private
improvements in the area, either through new development or rehabilitation of existing
buildings. The proposed project does provide for development on a currently vacant, blighted
site and will provide for a social/recreational facility for youths in the neighborhood.
The Planning Department has conducted an environmental review of the original project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a
Negative Declaration was issued for the subject project by the Planning Director on September
19, 1997 and made available for public review. No comments were received on the
environmental document. The Design Review Board recommended approval of the Negative
Declaration for this project through adoption of Design Review Board Resolution No. 259. The
redesign of the project reduced the scope of the project and no new environmental impacts
have been identified. Therefore, no additional environmental analysis is required. The attached
Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution approves the original Negative
Declaration.
EXHIBITS:
Housing and Redevelopment Resolution No. 363 Housing and Redevelopment Resolution No, 305 Housing and Redevelopment Resolution No, 306
I RESOLUTION NO. 307
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
I1
12
I8
I9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING
A MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT (RP 97-03) INCLUDING
VARIANCES FOR THE JOIN HANDS YOUTH FACILITY PROJECT ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF
ROOSEVELT STREET, BETWEEN PINE AND WALNUT, IN LAND USE
DISTRICT 5 OF THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA.
APPLICANT: JOIN HANDS SAVE-A-LIFE YOUTH FACILITY
APN: 204-081-08,09, 10
CASE NO: RP 97-03
WHEREAS, on November 24, 1997, the Carlsbad Design Review Board
held a duly noticed public hearing to consider a Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 97-03)
for construction of a new youth facility on property located on the west side of Roosevelt
Street, between Pine and Walnut; and
WHEREAS, said hearing was continued for further consideration to January
26,1998; and
WHEREAS, the hearing of January 26, 1998 was continued for further
consideration to February 23, 1998, and the Design Review Board adopted Design
Review Board Resolution No. 260, recommending to the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission that Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 97-03) be approved; and
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of
Carlsbad, on April 7, 1998 and May 12, 1998 held duly noticed public hearings to
consider the recommendations and heard aH persons interested in or opposed to Major
Redevelopment Permit RP 97-03; and
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of
Carisbad, on February 2, 1999 held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the
recommendations and heard all persons interested in or opposed to Major
1
z
2
4
e *
E
7
8
9
IO
II
12
I3
I4
I5
I6
I7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
Redevelopment Permit RP 97-03
WHEREAS, as a result of an environmental review of the subject project
conducted pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad, a
Negative Declaration was issued by the Planning Director on September 19, 1997 and
recommended for approval by Design Review Board Resolution No. 259 on January 26,
1998 and February 23,1998,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the foregoing recitals are true and correct.
2. Based on the evidence presented at the public hearings, the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission approves a Major Redevelopment Permit for
the Join Hands Save-A-Life Youth Facility, RP 97-03, including variances for the rear
setback, which exceeds the maximum range and for off-site loading and unloading for
persons using the facility, based on the following findings and subject to the following
conditions:
A. Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 305
approving the major redevelopment permit RP 97-03 for this project is amended to read:
I. The developer shall be allowed to construct the
building with interior improvements to provide for only one floor under this permit. This
restriction shall allow for a maximum of 6,175 square feet of building space. The
developer shall be required to submit a separate application for an amendment to this
permit at a later date if it desires to expand the interior space to include a second floor.
2
1 The developer shall not be allowed to expand without a further assessment of the parking
2 needs for the project and the applicable parking standard nor without prior approval from
3 this Commission.
4 2. The facility shall be primarily used for regular and
5
6 routine activities designed for low income youths and teens only as set forth in the permit
7 application. The facility shall not be leased for any non-organization, adult-oriented
8 activities at any time.
9 3. The front portion of the building shall be redesigned
10
11
12
and recessed, as applicable, to increase its articulation and enhance its visual
appearance on Roosevelt Street to the satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment
Director.
4. This facility is not approved for any type of residential
use and no person shall be allowed to live in the building nor shall any residential eating
or sleeping facilities be included.
5. All adult persons whether employed or volunteers, who
administer or assist in the administration or operation of the facilities for teens, shall be
subject to a background check and approval by the Chief of Police prior to commencing
18
19
20
21 any such activities.
22 6. When the applicant applies for or is granted CDBG
23 funding or any other public financial assistance by the City of Carlsbad or the
24 Redevelopment Agency, applicant should be aware that as a condition to receiving such
funding, conditions and covenants will be placed against those funds ensuring that they
will be used only for the purpose granted and that the funds shall be secured by a deed of
25
26
27
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 9 gj mum 327 13 %88
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
trust, lien or other appropriate mechanism that runs with the land as a condition to such
~ grant.
7. Any change in use for the subject property shall require
approval of the appropriate redevelopment permit with the requirement for a full
assessment and analysis of parking obligations. Any new use will be required to provide
additional parking in compliance with regulations in effect at the time of application.
8. Except as specifically modified above, all other terms
and conditions of Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 305, which is
hereby adopted, shall remain in full force and effect and are incorporated herein by the
reference.
9. Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution
No. 306, which is hereby adopted, is not modified by this resolution and shall remain in
full force and effect and its terms and conditions are incorporated herein by this reference.
10. A notice of issuance of this permit or the actual permit,
as appropriate, shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of the County of
San Diego to ensure that subsequent owners or encumbrancers are aware of the terms
and conditions of this permit which shall run with the land and be binding on such persons
or entities.
B. This action is final on the date this resolution is adopted by the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission. The provisions of Chapter 1 .I6 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code, “Time Limits for Judicial Review” shall apply:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
“NOTICE TO APPLICANT”
“The time within which judicial review of this decision must be
sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6,
which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by
Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other
paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate
court not later than the ninetieth day following the date on which
this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the
decision becomes final a request for the record of the
proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an amount
sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of such
record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court
is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date
on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to
the party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written
request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall
be filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad,
Village Drive, Carlsbad, California 92008.”
13 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the
14 Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad on the day 2 nd
15
16
17
of March 1999, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Lewis, Nygaard, Finnila & Kulchin
18 /I
NOES: None
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
ATTEST:
28
5
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
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 305
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
APPROVING A MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT (RP 97-03)
INCLUDING VARIANCES FOR A REAR SETBACK WHICH EXCEEDS
THE MAXIMUM STANDARD RANGE AND AN OFF-SITE
LOADING/UNLOADING AREA FOR THE JOIN HANDS YOUTH
FACILITY PROJECT ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE
OF ROOSEVELT STREET, BETWEEN PINE AND WALNUT, IN LAND
USE DISTRICT 5 OF THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA.
CASE NAME: JOIN HANDS SAVE-A-LIFE YOUTH FACILITY
APN: 204-081-08,09,10
CASE NO: RP 97-03
WHEREAS, Join Hands Save-A-Life, a California Non-Profit
Corporation, “Developer”, has filed a verified application with the Housing and
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Join
Hands Save-A-Life, a California Non-Profit Corporation, “Owner”, described as Lots 27,
28 , and 29 in Block 31, in the Town of Carlsbad, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California, according to the map thereof No. 535, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, May 2, 1888 (“the Property); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Major
Redevelopment Permit and variances for a rear setback which exceeds the maximum of
the standard range and an off-site loading/unloading area for participants, as shown on
Exhibits A-C, dated January 5, 1999 on file in the Housing and Redevelopment
Department, “Join Hands Project RP 97-03” as provided by Chapter 21.35.080 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, on November 24,1997, January 26, 1998 and February 23,
1998, the Carlsbad Design Review Board held duly noticed public hearings to consider a
Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 97-03), including signage, for construction of a new
8
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
HRC Resolution No. 3 b 5
Page 2
youth facility on property located on the west side of Roosevelt Street, between Pine
and Walnut, and adopted Design Review Board Resolution No. 260 recommending to
the Housing and Redevelopment Commission that Major Redevelopment Permit (RP
97-03) be approved with requested variances; and
WHEREAS, on April 7, 1998 and’May 12, 1998 the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission held public hearings to consider Major Redevelopment
Permit RP 97-03 for the proposed Join Hands Youth Facility; and,
WHEREAS, as a result of Housing and Redevelopment Commission
review of Major Redevelopment Permit 97-03, the developer was required to redesign
the project to reduce the number of variances required for the project; and,
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of
Carlsbad, on the date of this resolution held an additional duly noticed public hearing to
consider the project redesign proposed by the developer for Major Redevelopment
Permit RP 97-03 and to consider the recommendations and heard all persons interested
in or opposed to Major Redevelopment Permit (RP 97-03); and
WHEREAS, as a result of an environmental review of the subject project
conducted pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad, a
Negative Declaration was issued for the subject project by the Planning Department on
September 19, 1997 and recommended for approval by Design Review Board
Resolution No. 259 on January 26, 1998 and February 23,1998.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
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
-30s HRC Resolution No.
Page 3
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission hereby APPROVES a
Major Redevelopment Permit for the Join Hands Save-A-Life Youth
Facility Project, RP 97-03, including variances for the rear setback
which exceeds the maximum range and for an off-site
loading/unloading area for participants, based on the following
findings and subject to the following conditions:
GENERAL AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS:
1. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission concurs with the Design
Review Board’s recommendation for approval of a Negative Declaration
for the subject project and the Commission has determined that the
project will have no significant environmental impact. The redesign of the
subject project reduced the scope of the project and no new
environmental impacts have been identified. Therefore, no additional
environmental analysis is required. The Commission has approved the
Negative Declaration issued for the project on September 19, 1997.
2. The Project qualifies as a Major Redevelopment Permit with requests for
variances under Chapter 21.35 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code because
the project involves new construction of a building , or addition to an
existing building, with a building permit valuation which exceeds
~$150,000.
3. The Project is not located within the Coastal Zone. Therefore, no Coastal
Permit is required.
4. The Project is determined to be consistent with the land use plan,
development standards, design guidelines and other applicable
regulations set forth with the Village Redevelopment Plan and Village
Master Plan and Design Guidelines, with approval of the following
required findings to allow for variances for the rear setback that exceeds
the standard range and the off-site loading/unloading area for
participants:
a) The application of certain provisions of the Village Master Plan and
Design Manual and the Carlsbad Municipal Code will result in
practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships which would make
development inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the
Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Plan. A need has been publicly
expressed for additional youth activities within the community which
will provide a diversion to gang activities and other activities which
may have an adverse impact on the community. The requested
variances are necessary in order for the developer to construct a
youth facility which is appropriate for the type of programs to be
offered to youths within the neighborhood. The rear setback which
exceeds the standard range is necessary to accommodate the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HRC Resolution No. 3 OS
Page 4
parking required at the rear of the property. This is desired and
encouraged by the Village Master Plan for projects located on
Roosevelt Street. Without the variance, the project would not be able
to provide the required parking at the rear of the project. As related to
the off-site loading/unloading area, the Commission finds that the off-
site location will not impede vehicular traffic or create conflicts with
pedestrians. In addition, the proposed project is located mid-block in
an area where vehicle speeds are lower and the street is wide
enough to accommodate the off-site loading/unloading area.
b) There are exceptional circumstances or conditions unique to the
property or the proposed development which do not generally apply to
other properties or developments which have the same standard,
restrictions, controls. The proposed project represents a unique use
with unique circumstances. Because the project provides for a facility
which is not typical in terms of other commercial buildings in the
area, there are certain facility design requirements such as the rear
setback and on-site loading/unloading area which present a conflict
for the developer in terms of the programs to be offered within the
subject facility. It is desired that the parking be provided at the rear of
the site to prevent conflicts with pedestrians in the area. Without the
required rear setback variance, the developer could not provide the
parking at the rear of the site. Because of the nature of the programs
to be offered by the developer, there are also exceptional
circumstances which result in less need for an on-site
loading/unloading area. The participants will arrive at differing times
throughout the afternoon and evening, which is much different than
an elementary school where students are arriving basically at the
same time in the morning and leaving at the same time in the
afternoon and creating a much more significant potential for traffic
conflicts. A majority of the participants in the Join Hands programs will
be arriving as pedestrians or bicycle riders. The Commission finds
that the exceptional circumstances due to the type of programs
provided by the developer justify a variance from the subject
development standards.
c) The granting of a variance will not be injurious or materially
detrimental to the public welfare, other properties or improvements in
the project area. The rear setback which exceeds the standard range
will not be detrimental because it allows the parking to be located to
the rear of the site, which will actually eliminate conflicts with
pedestrians using Roosevelt Street. There is very little pedestrian
activity on Tyler Street, which is located to the rear of the property.
The off-site loading and unloading area will have no detrimental
impact on surrounding properties due to the already existing mixed
use nature of the land uses within the area. Employees of
surrounding businesses will generally arrive at work prior to the
opening of the youth facility and will leave the businesses prior to the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HRC Resolution No. 305
Page 5
highest anticipated usage period for the youth facility. The youth
facility use hours are at off-peak hours in terms of commercial
compatibility and will provide for closure at an hour which should have
minimal impact on the neighboring residential.
d) The granting of a variance will not contradict the standards
established in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual because
those standards were intended to be somewhat flexible in order to
encourage diversity and variety. The granting of the subject
variances will not contradict the standards set forth in the Village
Master Plan and Design Manual because the project has been
designed in a manner consistent with the pedestrian orientation which
is desired for the area and set forth as an objective of the Village
Master Plan and Design Manual. There is adequate area to the rear
of the proposed building (within the public right-of-way, off of Tyler
Street at the sidewalk curb) to allow for participants to be dropped off
and picked up safely without having a detrimental impact on traffic
flow within the area. These conditions are all consistent with the
standards set forth in the Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
e) The project is in a location where adjacent buildings are setback
further than the permitted standard (range), adjacent buildings are
likely to remain, and setting the structure back to the desired standard
will maintain and reinforce the Village character of the area. The
subject property is in a location which has varying setbacks. To the
north, the residential units have varying setbacks. To the south, the
commercial property is setback in the rear by nearly 77 feet. It is
expected that these buildings will remain for many more years. The
larger rear setback allows for a private outdoor patio and a rear
parking lot, which are both desirable features of the project.
f) The project is in a location which is in a transition area to residential
development and where increased setbacks would soften the visual
transition between commercial and residential development or would
protect the livability of the residential development. The project is
located in a very mixed use area with a gradual transition into
residential. The proposed project serves as a “bridge” between the
uses in terms of the mixed setbacks. The increased setback in the
rear will help to create an appropriate transition from the residential to
the north to the commercial property to the south.
5. The Project has been determined to be consistent with the land use plan,
development standards, design guidelines and other applicable regulations set forth
with the Village Redevelopment Plan and Village Master Plan and Design
Guidelines, with approval of the findings noted above to grant the requested
variances. The following required findings will allow for the reduced front and side
yard setbacks, to six (6) feet and the minimum of five (5) feet (of the acceptable
range), respectively:
HRC Resolution No. 305
Page 6
a) The reduced standard will not have an adverse impact on surrounding
properties. The project is located in an area which has a mix of uses,
both commercial and residential. The commercial property to the
south has a similar (5 feet) front setback. The residential property to
the north is setback approximately 15 feet from the property line. The
reduced front setback will have no adverse impact on the residential
property to the north or the commercial property to the south. This
setback allows for more pedestrian interaction which is desired for
both this facility and the area in general. The commercial property to
the south has no side yard setback on the side of the property which
is adjacent to the subject property. Any new building on the adjacent
sites, however, will have the same minimum side yard setback
requirement (5 feet).
b) The reduced standard will assist in developing a project which meets
the goals of the Village Redevelopment Area and is consistent with
the objectives for the land use district in which the project is to be
located. The reduced standard is necessary in order to allow the
developer to construct a building which can provide needed services
to the youths of the area. It allows for a more visually appealing
design and assists in the effort to create a facility which is an
appropriate size to accommodate the desired activities.
c) The reduced standard will assist in creating a project which is
interesting and visually appealing and reinforces the Village character
of the area. The project design is consistent with the guidelines for the
Village. The reduced setbacks provide for appropriate articulation in
the building which assists in the effort to make the building visually
interesting and more appealing.
6. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds that the applicable
parking requirement for the proposed project shall be the same as that
applied to elementary schools, as set forth within Chapter 21.44 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code. The project shall provide for a total of three
parking spaces which meets the applicable standard for elementary schools
under the representation of the developer that only two (2) employees will be
employed at the facility. The required loading and unloading area shall be
provided at the curb off of Tyler Street, to the rear of the subject project. The
Commission has determined that the loading and unloading area to be
provided off of Tyler Street at the sidewalk curb is acceptable and meets the
intent of the applicable parking standard. The applicable findings, as noted
above, have been made in order to grant a variance to allow the
loading/unloading area to be provided off-site.
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HRC Resolution No. ‘(0 5
Page 7
GENERAL PLAN AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT FINDINGS:
7. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds that the project, as
conditioned herein is in conformance with the Elements of the City’s General
Plan, based on the following:
a) That the General Plan identifies the “Village” and references the
Village Master Plan and Design Manual as the appropriate land use
plan for the area. The project is consistent with the Carlsbad Village
Area Redevelopment Plan and the Village Master Plan and Design
Manual, effective as of January 12, 1996, with approval of the
requested variances, because it will provide for a land use (youth
facility) which supports the residential units within Land Use District 5
of the Village Redevelopment Area.
b) That the existing streets can accommodate the estimated ADTs and
all required public right-of-way has been dedicated and has been or
will be improved to serve the development. The pedestrian spaces
and circulation have been designed in relationship to the land use and
available parking. Pedestrian circulation is provided through
pedestrian-oriented building design, landscaping, and hardscape.
Public facilities have been or will be constructed to serve the
proposed project. The project has been conditioned to develop and
implement a program of “best management practices” for the
elimination and reduction of pollutants which enter into and/or are
transported within storm drainage facilities.
c) The proposed project will not have an adverse impact on any open
space within the surrounding area. The project is being developed on
a vacant lot which has appropriate zoning for a youth facility. The
project is also consistent with the Open Space requirements for new
development within the Village Redevelopment Area.
d) The proposed project has been conditioned to comply with the
Uniform Building and Fire Codes adopted by the City to ensure that
the project meets appropriate fire protection and other safety
standards.
e) The proposed project has been exempted from paying public facilities
fees because the developer is a non-profit organization.
8. The project is consistent with the City-wide Facilities and Improvements Plan,
the applicable local facilities management plan, and all City public facility
policies and ordinances since:
a) The project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will
not be issued for the project unless the District Engineer determines
that sewer service is available, and building cannot occur within the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HRC Resolution No. 905
Page 8
project unless sewer service remains available, and the District
Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities
Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to
sewer service for this project.
b) All necessary public improvements have been provided or are
required as conditions of approval.
9. The project has been conditioned to pay any new construction tax, or
development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional requirements
established by the Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to
Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, which are applicable to the
project. This will ensure continued availability of public facilities.
IO. This project has been conditioned to comply with any applicable requirement
approved as part of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1.
Il. The project is conditioned to comply and remain consistent with the City’s
Landscape Manual, adopted by City Council Resolution No.90-384.
12. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission has reviewed each of the
exactions imposed on the Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby
finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused
by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the degree of the
exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
GENERAL AND PLANNING CONDITIONS:
13. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all
necessary corrections and modifications to the Exhibits and/or other
documents to make them internally consistent and in conformity with final
action on the project. Developer shall develop the property substantially as
shown on the approved Exhibits for the project.
14. The Developer shall provide the Agency with a reproducible 24” X 36”, mylar
copy of the Site Plan for the project as approved by the final decision making
body. The Site Plan shall reflect the conditions of approval by the Agency.
The plan copy shall be submitted to the Planning Director and approved prior
to building or grading permit approval, whichever occurs first.
15. The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit
plan check, a reduced, legible version of the approving resolution on a 24” X
36” blueline drawing.
16. Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property
unless the District Engineer determines that water and sewer facilities are
available at the time of application for such water and sewer permits and will
continue to be available until time of occupancy.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HRC Resolution No. 3a5
Page 9
17. Prior to the issuance of the Redevelopment Permit, Developer shall submit to
the Agency a Notice of Restriction to be filed in the office of the County
Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment
Director, notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the
City of Carlsbad’s Redevelopment Agency has issued a Redevelopment
Permit by Design Review Board Resolution No. 260 on the real property
owned by the Developer. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property
description, location of the file containing complete project details and all
conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for
inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The Planning Director or the Housing
and Redevelopment Director has the authority to execute and record an
amendment to the notice which modifies or terminates said notice upon a
showing of good cause by the developer or successor in interest.
18. Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a six-foot high masonry wall with
gates pursuant to City standards. Location of said receptacles shall be
approved by the Planning Director or the Housing and Redevelopment
Director. Enclosure shall be of similar colors and/or materials to the project
to the satisfaction of the Planning Director or Housing and Redevelopment
Director. .
19. An exterior lighting plan including parking areas shall be submitted for
Planning Director or Housing and Redevelopment Director approval. All
lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on
adjacent homes or property.
20. No outdoor storage of material shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire
Chief. In such instance, a storage plan will be submitted for approval by the
Fire Chief and the Planning Director or Housing and Redevelopment
Director.
21. The Developer shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan in
conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City’s
Landscape Manual. The plans shall be submitted to and approval obtained
from the Planning Director or Housing and Redevelopment Director prior
to the approval of the grading or building permit, whichever occurs first. The
Developer shall construct and install all landscaping as shown on the
approved plans, and maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving
conditions, free from weeds, trash and debris.
22. The first submittal of detailed landscaping and irrigation plans shall be
accompanied by the project’s building, improvement and grading plans.
23. Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on all new buildings
so as to be plainly visible from the street; color of identification and/or
addresses shall contrast to their background color.
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HRC Resolution No. 3 05
Page 10
24. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state
and local ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
25. The Developer shall construct a six foot (6’) masonry block wall on the
north side of the common property line. The height of the solid block
wall shall drop to forty-two inches (42”) ten feet (10’) from the east and
west property line for pedestrian visibility purposes.
26. The hours of operation for the subject facility shall be 3pm to IOpm,
Monday through Friday, and 8am to IOpm on Saturday. No youths may
remain in, or around, the facility after the noted hours of operation.
27. The developer shall ensure that full-time adult supervision is provided
at all times during the hours of operation noted above.
28. The developer shall provide for the installation of permanent bicycle
racks as noted on the preliminary lighting plan submitted by the
developer and dated January 26,1998.
29. The developer shall be allowed to construct the building with interior
improvements to provide for only one floor under this permit. This
restriction shall allow for a maximum of 6175 square feet of building
space. The developer shall be required to submit a separate application
for an amendment to this permit, or a new redevelopment permit, at a
later date if a decision is made to expand the interior space to a second
floor, adding a maximum of 2925 square feet of building space to the
existing facility. The developer shall not be allowed to expand without
prior approval of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
30. The developer shall not be allowed to conduct any type of special
event, including dances, fund raising activities and/or other activities,
at the subject facility. The facility shall be used for regular and routine
activities designed for low income youths and teens only as set forth in
the permit application. The facility shall not be used at any time for
adult activities, or activities which will bring large numbers of adults to
the site. The facility shall not be leased for any private, non-
organization activity at any time.
ENGINEERING CONDITIONS:
31. The developer shall pay all current fees and deposits required.
32. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed
construction site within this project, the developer shall submit to and receive
approval from the City Engineer for the proposed haul route. The developer
shall comply with all conditions and requirements the City Engineer may
impose with regards to the hauling operation.
HRC Resolution No. 30s
Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
33. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the developer shall comply with the
requirements of the City’s anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and when
such a program is formally established by the City.
34. Prior to issuance of building permit(s), the developer shall file and
receive approval of a boundary adjustment application with the City to
merge the three existing lots so that the project site is situated on one
lot.
35. Prior to issuance of building permit(s), the developer shall obtain a
City right-of-way permit to install driveway aprons in the public right-of-
way on Tyler Street.
II WATER, SEWER AND FIRE CONDITIONS
36. The entire potable water system, reclaimed water system and sewer system
shall be evaluated in detail to insure that adequate capacity, pressure and
flow demands can be met.
37. The Developer shall be responsible for.all fees, deposits, and charges which
will be collected before and/or at the time of issuance of the building permit.
The San Diego County Water Authority capacity charge will be collected at
issuance of application for meter installations.
38. Sequentially, the Developer’s Engineer shall do the following:
a) Meet with the City Fire Marshal and establish the fire protection
requirements. Also obtain GPM demand for domestic and irrigational
needs from appropriate parties.
b) Prior to the preparation of sewer, water and reclaimed water
improvement plans, a meeting must be scheduled with the District
Engineer for review, comment and approval of the preliminary system
layouts and usages (i.e., GPM - EDU).
39. This project is approved under the expressed condition that building permits
will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the water
district serving the development determines that adequate water service and
sewer facilities are available at the time of application for such water service
and sewer permits will continue to be available until time of occupancy. This
note shall be placed on the project plans.
40. If any of the foregoing conditions fails to occur; or, if they are, by their terms,
to be implemented and maintained over time; if any such conditions fail to be
so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the Redevelopment
Agency shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted;
deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke
or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HRC Resolution No. J 0s
Page 12
approvals herein granted; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their
compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No
vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the
Agency’s approval of this Resolution.
! STANDARD CODE REMINDERS:
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not
limited to the following code requirements.
41. The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as
required by Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
42. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for
this project within 18 months from the date of final project approval.
43. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable
sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in
effect at time of building permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically
provided herein.
44. The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access
requirements pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code.
45. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally
integrated and concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent
properties and streets, in substance as provided in Building Department
Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the Directors of Planning and Building.
46. All landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared to conform with the
Landscape Manual and submitted per the landscape plan check procedures
on file in the Planning Director.
47. The project shall comply with recycling collection area requirements pursuant
to Section 21.105.060. The recycling area shall be noted on the final plans
submitted for applicable building permits for the project.
48. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission. The provision of Chapter 1 .I6 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code, “Time Limits for Judicial Review” shall apply:
“NOTICE TO DEVELOPER”
“This time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by
Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of
Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking
judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day
following the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after
1
:
:
L
f
f
i
I
I
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
HRC Resolution No. 3 0 5 Page 13
the decision becomes final a request for the record of the proceedings accompanied by
the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of
such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not
later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either personally
delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written
request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City
Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92008.”
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the
2 nd day of March , 1999 by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Commission Members Lewis, Nygaard, Finnila, & Kulchin
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commission Membe
ABSTAIN: None
2D
1
2
3
4
5 ,
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTlON NO. 306
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A MAJOR
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE JOIN HANDS YOUTH
FACILITY, WITH VARIANCES FOR THE REAR SETBACK WHICH
EXCEEDS THE STANDARD RANGE AND AN OFF-SITE
LOADING/UNLOADING AREA FOR PARTICIPANTS, ON PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ROOSEVELT STREET BETWEEN
PINE AND WALNUT IN LAND USE DISTRICT 5 OF THE VILLAGE
REDEVELOPMENT AREA.
CASE NAME: JOIN HANDS SAVE-A-LIFE YOUTH FACILITY
APN: 204-081-08,09,10
CASE NO: RP 97-03
WHEREAS, Join Hands Save-A-Life, a California Non-Profit Corporation,
“Developer”, has filed a verified application with the Housing and Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Join Hands Save-A-Life, a
California Non-Profit Corporation, “Owner”, described as Lots 27, 28, and 29 in Block
31, in the Town of Carlsbad, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California, according to the map thereof No. 535, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, May 2, 1888 (“the property); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Major
Redevelopment Permit and variances for the rear setback which exceeds the standard
range and an off-site loading and unloading area for participants, as shown on Exhibits
A-C, dated January 5, 1999 on file in the Housing and Redevelopment Department,
“Join Hands Project RP 97-03” as provided by Chapter 21.35.080 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission did on the
date of this resolution hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to
consider said request for a Negative Declaration; and,
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
11
I2
13
I4
I5
I6
I7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
66 HRC Resolution No. --/
-
WHEREAS, at said public hearing and upon considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff,
and considering any written comments received, the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration on RP 97-03.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission, as follows:
A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission hereby APPROVES
the Negative Declaration according to the one page notice and the
EIA Part II Form attached hereto and made a part hereof, based
on the following findings:
FINDINGS:
1. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad has
reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration (RP 97-03), the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to approving the project. Based on the EIA Part-i1 and
comments thereon, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds that
there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on
the environment and thereby approves the Negative Declaration.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
1
2
3
4
5 I
6
7
8
9
10
11
I2
13
I4
15
I6
I7
I8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-06 HRC Resolution No. -
2. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds that the Negative
Declaration (RP 97-03) reflects the independent judgment of the Housing
and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the
2 nd day of March , 1999 by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Lewis, Nygaard, Finnila & Kulchin
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner
ABSTAIN: None
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: A through lot between Tyler Street and Roosevelt Street north of
Walnut Street in the City of Carlsbad.
Project Description: A 9,974 square foot recreation center with associated offices.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Christer Westman in the Planning Department
at (760) 43 8- 116 1, extension 4448.
DATED: SEPTEMBER 19,1997
CASE NO: RP 97-03
CASEY NAME: JOIN HANDS
PUBLISH DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 1997
2075 Las Palmas Dr. l Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576 - (619) 438-11610 FAX (619) 438-0894
-. .- ,
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: RP 97-03
DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, 1997
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: JOIN HANDS SAVE A LIFE
2. APPLICANT: FRANK SORiNO
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 3528 Madison Street. Carlsbad,
California 92008
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Mav 30, 1997
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 9,974 square foot recreation building which principal space is a
basketball court on an existing infill lot within the Citv of Carlsbad redevelopment area.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning q Transportation/Circulation q Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
q Geological Problems q Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
cl Water
@ Air Quality
El Hazards cl Cultural Resources
cl Noise cl Recreation
q Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03128196
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
El
0
cl
0
cl
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Negative
Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Negative Declaration
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
Planner Signature Date
Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL IMt-ACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
0 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.
0 “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.
l “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
l “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
a Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but g potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
l When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
l 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.
3 Rev. 03125/96
4
0 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case. the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations ” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
Rev. 03125196 28
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a)
b)
c>
4
e>
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (General Plan Master EIR 93-01)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(General Plan Master EIR 93-01)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (General Plan Master EIR 93-
01)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (General Plan Master EIR 93-
01) b)
c>
Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (General Plan
Master EIR 93-O 1)
Displace existing housing, ‘especially affordable housing? (General Plan Master EIR 93-O I)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
a>
b)
c>
d>
e>
0
s>
h)
9
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (General Plan Master EIR 93-O 1)
Seismic ground shaking? (General Plan Master EIR 93-
01) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(General Plan Master EIR 93-O 1)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (General Plan
Master EIR 93-O I)
Landslides or mudflows? (General Pian Master EIR 93-
01) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (General
Plan Master EIR 93-O 1)
Subsidence of the land? (General Plan Master EIR 93-
01) Expansive soils? (General Plan Master EIR 93-O 1)
Unique geologic or physical features? (General Plan
Master EIR 93-01)
Potentially
Significant Impact
cl
0
0
cl
cl
Cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
0
q
cl
cl
0
El cl
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
cl
-cl
0
cl
cl
0
0
cl
cl
Cl
cl
cl
q
Cl
cl
cl q
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
0
cl
cl
No
Impact
cl El cl El
cl lx
0 El
cl lx
q Ix1
cl Ix1
cl ix] cl IXI
Rev. 03/2X/96
Issues (and Supporting Informh..on Sources).
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
4
b)
c>
4
4
9
g)
h)
i)
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (General Plan
Master EIR 93-O 1)
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (General Plan Master EIR 93-O I)
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (General Plan Master EIR 93-O I)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01)
Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (Genera1 Plan Master EIR 93-01)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(General Plan Master EIR 93-O 1)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (General Plan Master
EIR 93-O 1)
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (General
Plan Master EIR 93-01)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
b)
c>
4
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (General
Plan Master EIR 93-O 1)
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (General Plan
Master EIR 93-O 1)
Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (Genera1 Plan Master EIR 93-
01) Create objectionable odors? (General Plan Master EIR
93-01)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
c>
d)
e)
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (General
Plan Master EIR 93-01)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous. intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (Genera1 Plan Master EIR 93-
01) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(General Plan Master EIR 93-O 1)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(General Plan Master EIR 93-O 1)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(General Plan Master EIR 93-01)
Potentially Significant Impact
cl
cl
cl
cl
•I
cl
cl
0
0
1xI
cl
Cl
q
Ix]
cl
cl
cl
q
- ,‘.‘^
i
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Cl
Cl
0
Cl
Cl
q
cl
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
Cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
Less Than Significan t Impact
No Impact
cl Ix1
cl (XI
cl Ix1
q
cl
0
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
0
Ix1
‘xl
El
cl
lx
lx
El
El
6 Rev. 03128196 30
- I’.--
Issues (and Supporting Informirrion Sources).
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(General Plan Master EIR 93-O 1)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (General Plan
Master EIR 93-O 1)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
a)
b)
cl
4
e)
VIII.
4
b)
4
in impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01)
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(General Plan Master EIR 93-01)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (General Plan Master EIR
93-01)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(General Plan Master EIR 93-01)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (General
Plan Master EIR 93-O 1)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(General Plan Master EIR 93-01)
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner’? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01)
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? (General Plan Master EIR
93-01)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
b)
cl
4
e>
A risk or’accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (General Plan Master EIR 93-
01) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan Master
EIR 93-01)
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (General Plan Master EIR 93-O 1)
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01)
Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
cl
cl
cl
q
cl
cl
0
a
q
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
Potentially Less Than No Significant Significnn Impact
Unless t Impact Mitigation
Incorporated u cl Ix1
cl 0 El
cl
0
cl
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
q El
cl El
cl El
q [XI
cl Ix1
0 El
cl El
q El
0 Cl lxl
cl cl (x1
Cl q El
cl Cl El
cl Cl El
7 Rev. 03/28/96
- i
Issues (and Supporting lnforma~~oh Sources).
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (General Plan Master
EIR 93-O 1)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (General
Plan Master EIR 93-O 1)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01)
b) Police protection? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01)
c) Schools? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
(General Plan Master EIR 93-01)
e) Other governmental services? (General Plan Master
EIR 93-O 1)
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
a)
b)
cl
d)
4
0
8)
XIII.
a>
b)
c>
XIV.
a>
b)
c>
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas? (General Plan Master EIR 93-O 1)
Communications systems? (General Plan Master EIR
93-01)
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (General Plan Master EIR 93-O 1)
Sewer or septic tanks? (General Plan Master EIR 93-
01) Storm water drainage? (General Plan Master EIR 93-
01) Solid waste disposal? (General Plan Master EIR 93-O I)
Local or regional water supplies? (General Plan Master
EIR 93-O 1)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (General
Plan Master EIR 93-01)
Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (General
Plan Master EIR 93-O 1)
Create light or glare? (General Plan Master EIR 93-01)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (General Plan
Master EIR 93-O 1)
Disturb archaeological resources? (General Plan Master
EIR 93-01)
Affect historical resources? (General Plan Master EIR
93-01)
Potentially Significant Impact
cl
Cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
0
cl q
cl
Cl
cl
cl 0
q
Cl
cl
Cl
0
q
Potentially Less Than No Significant Significan Impact
Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated
0 0 [XI
0 0 El
cl cl 0 a
q
cl cl
cl
Cl
cl
cl cl
•J
cl
cl
cl
0
Cl
cl lzl Cl El cl El cl lxl
cl ix)
cl El Cl Ix1
cl IXI
cl Ix1
0 El
cl (XI cl ‘El
El El
q El
Cl Ix1
cl El
cl Ix1
cl El
8 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (General
Plan Master EIR 93-01)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (General Plan Master EIR 93-
01)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (General Plan
Master EIR 93-O 1)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (General
Plan Master EIR 93-O 1)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OFSIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
C’Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?,
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Potentially Significant Impact
cl
cl
cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
0
Cl
q
0
0
cl
Less Than Significan t Impact
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
No Impact
lxl
(x1
El
Ix1
Ia
Cl El
Cl q El
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)@
9 Rev. 03128196
- -
- ,\-.
! ,
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
GENERAL:
The project is the construction of a single building less than 10,000 square feet. The site is zoned
for commercial development and is vacant. Development of the site will not require significant
modification to the land. There are no natural or historical significant resources onsite, therefore
there will be no significant impacts due to development of the property.
The development will not create significant impacts. There will not be a significant increase in
traffic from the .use in that most users will not be of driving age. Noise will be contained within
the structure, no hazardous materials will be used or stored onsite, the project will be constructed
according to the requirements of a redevelopment permit which included review of the building
for aesthetic compatibility in the existing neighborhood.
AIR QUALITY:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the
San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
CIRCULATION:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include 1)
measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to
develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks,
pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation
strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to
control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either
been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
11 Rev. 03/28/96 35
March 5,1999
Join Hands - Save a Life
Mr. Frank Sorino
3528 Madison Street
Carlsbad, CA 92008
1 RP W-3, jQ~,WU4t$RG$AVE A LtFE YOUTH FACt LTJ”y, I
Enclosed for your reference are copies of Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment
Commission Agenda Bill No. 306, and Resolution Nos. 305, 306 and 307.
These documents went before the Housing and Redevelopment Commission on
March 2, 1999, when the Resolutions were adopted, approving your Major
Redevelopment Permit No. 97-3.
If you have any questions regarding your permit, please call the Housing and
Redevelopment Department at 434-2811.
Kathleen D. Shoup
St-. Office Specialist
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive * Carlsbad, CA 92008-l 989 - (760) 434-2808 a9