Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-12-17; Planning Commission; ; CUP 97-04|SUP 97-01|HDP 97-06|CDP 97-08 - SUNRISE LA COSTAThe City of CARLSBAD Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. P.C. AGENDA OF: December 17,1997 Application complete date: July 28, 1997 Project Planner: Anne Hysong Project Engineer: Frank Jimeno SUBJECT: CUP 97-04/SUP 97-01/HDP 97-06/CDP 97-08 - SUNRISE LA COSTA Request for approval of a conditional use permit, El Camino Real Corridor special use permit, hillside development permit, and coastal development permit to allow the construction of a 64,757 square foot professional care facility located on a vacant, pre-graded 5.92 acre infill parcel at the southwest corner of Aviara Parkway and El Camino Real in the RD-M zone in Local Facilities Management Zone 6. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4212, 4213, 4214, and 4215 APPROVING CUP 97-04, SUP 97-01, HDP 97-06 and CDP 97-08 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. n. INTRODUCTION The proposed project consists of a 64,757 square foot professional care facility containing 86 residential rooms with a maximum of 120 beds on a pre- graded 5.92 acre parcel located at the southwest corner of El Camino Real and Aviara Parkway in the RD-M zone. Professional care facilities in the RD-M zone require a conditional use permit, and the project's location adjacent to El Camino Real on a pre-graded terraced lot within the Mello II segment of Carlsbad's coastal boundaries requires consistency with the "El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards" and the policies and standards of the Mello II LCP segment and Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone Ordinance, and exclusion from the Hillside Development Ordinance development standards. Findings required for a conditional use permit can be made and the project is consistent with all applicable development standards and relevant LCP policies. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting Planning Commission approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 64,757 square foot professional care facility providing assisted living accommodations and services to a maximum of 120 senior residents. The project is proposed on two of three previously graded terraced building pads located at the southwest corner of El Camino Real and Aviara Parkway. The parcel is zoned RD-M and professional care facilities are allowed in this zone by Conditional Use Permit. The underlying Residential Medium (RM) density General Plan Designation permits 4-8 residential dwelling units per acre, however, the proposed commercial living units are not subject to density restrictions. CUP 97-04/SUP 97-01/HbP 97-06/CDP 97-08 - SUNRISE LA COsTA December 17,1997 Page 2 The project site is surrounded by existing development including Aviara Parkway and the Plaza Paseo Real Commercial Center to the north, single family residences to the south, the 36 unit Seaport Villas Condominium project to the west, and El Camino Real and multiple family units to the east. The project achieves compatibility with adjacent uses as a result of project design, separation from adjacent uses on three sides by public streets, and greater than a 200 foot building setback from its southern property line as a result of project design and the SDG&E easement. The Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit for a larger 183,240 square foot, 170 unit professional care facility on the site in 1990 and an amendment to that permit in 1991, however, the permit was never activated and subsequently expired in 1996. The site alteration proposed by the previous project was substantially greater due to grading required to create subterranean garages and multi-level building pads. The professional care facility approved in 1991 was designed as a congregate care facility which would provide services to independent senior residents as well as those requiring assistance with the activities of daily living. The proposed professional care facility differs from the former facility in that Sunrise La Costa would limit their operation to the provision of assisted living care for frail older adults who can no longer live on their own but do not require complex medical care. The facility would include a specialized program for residents with Alzheimer's disease and other related memory disorders. The types of services offered would include assistance with personal care, meals, social, educational, devotional and recreational programs, housekeeping, personal laundry and linen services, daily status checks, a full-time registered nurse, and concierge services. The average resident in this type of facility is in their middle eighties, requires some personal care assistance, and relies on the transportation provided by Sunrise or family members rather than driving their own car. The proposed facility requires minor grading to accommodate the two and three story structure which is designed to occupy two of the three existing terraced building pads by terracing the structure over the existing slope which separates the first two building pads. The result of this design is that the. structure located on the northern building pad is two story, and the structure located on the lower middle pad is three story. The third terraced building pad on the site is restricted by a SDG&E easement and is proposed as a passive pedestrian area along Manzanita Street that would be available for use by Sunrise residents as well as the surrounding neighborhood. This area contains a circular walkway, benches, and landscaping and is connected to the project's overall pedestrian circulation system. The proposed building design includes elements from the Spanish Mission Revival period and the overall building mass will be reduced by its unique configuration. The structure consists of a great deal of building articulation and includes a variety of roof planes, arcades and trellises. The exterior finishes will consist of smooth plastered walls, divided light windows, mission tile roofs, and rough sawn heavy timber trellis and arcade elements along with accent tiles and ornamental iron balconies. Each building elevation will be unique with its combination of massing, architectural detailing, and landscape elements. The structure is surrounded by a walkway, landscaped patios, seating areas, a garden, and a separate Alzheimer's sensory garden offering passive outdoor activity. The facility consists of 86 studio, one and two bedroom commercial living units, two kitchens, dining rooms, living rooms, activity rooms, a library, covered sun CUP 97-04/SUP 97-01/HDP 97-06/CDP 97-08 - SUNRISE LA COSTA December 17,1997 Page 3 porches, and administrative offices and services. The units range in size from 285 square feet to 570 square feet and are dispersed throughout each floor. The proposed project is subject to the following standards and policies: A. General Plan - Residential Medium Density (RM) Land Use Designation; B. Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program; C. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 21 (Zoning Ordinance) including: 1. Chapter 21.24 - RD-M Zone 2. Chapter 21.42 - Conditional Uses; 3. Chapter 21.201 and 21.203 - Coastal Development Permit Procedures and Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone 4. Chapter 21.45 - Hillside Development Regulations; D. El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards; and E. Growth Management. IV. ANALYSIS The recommendation of approval for this project was developed by analyzing the project's consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. The following analysis section discusses compliance with each of the regulations/policies utilizing both text and tables. A. General Plan The project is consistent with the RM Land Use designation in that it is a commercial residence for senior residents which includes the necessary facilities and services to serve them. The commercial project is not subject to residential development density restrictions and is not expected to generate substantially greater traffic or noise than a medium density residential project. In accordance with a noise study performed for the project, the project will be conditioned to mitigate interior noise levels to 45 dBA CNEL in accordance with the City's Noise Element. The commercial project will satisfy or exceed all of the implementing RD-M zoning standards and will be conditioned to construct all necessary public improvements to property frontages in accordance with City standards to ensure public safety. B. Mello IILCP The project, as proposed, is consistent with all development and resource preservation policies of the Mello II Local Coastal Program and its implementing ordinance, Chapter 21.203 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The property carries the same LCP designations as the City's General Plan and zoning. Therefore, the proposed use is allowed through a Conditional Use Permit. The intent of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.203 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code), is to provide additional protective regulations. The applicable portion of Chapter 21.203 focuses on deterring soil erosion, protecting lagoons and other sensitive coastal resources. The project site has been previously graded and contains no steep slopes or natural vegetation. Runoff CUP 97-04/SUP 97-01/HDP 97-06/CDP 97-08 - SUNRISE LA December 17, 1997 Page 4 from this project is conveyed to environmentally sensitive areas and in accordance with City standards, the developer will be conditioned to provide adequate means of eliminating grease and oils from drainage prior to discharge. Cl. Chapter 21.24 - RD-M Zone The proposed professional care facility is permitted by the existing zoning designation of RD-M provided the findings to grant a Conditional Use Permit can be made. A discussion of the required findings as applied to this project is contained in the following section of this staff report. The project, as designed, meets all minimum zoning requirements including building height, setbacks, building coverage, and parking requirements. C2. Chapter 21.42 - Conditional Uses The proposed use is necessary and desirable for the development of the community and is in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan. The professional care facility will provide necessary housing for elderly residents requiring assistance and be located near a commercial/governmental center located to the north of the site for the convenience of its residents. The project will not be detrimental to existing uses as adequate buffers have been provided from adjacent properties and the project's Spanish architecture is consistent with the style prevalent in the immediate area. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the intended use. The proposed buildings will meet or exceed all setback requirements. The project proposes a building coverage of only 10 percent of the lot whereas the zone provides for up to a maximum of 60 percent. A substantial portion of the site (sixty-five percent) is proposed for landscaping and passive outdoor recreational amenities. All of the features necessary to adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the area will be provided and maintained. The proposed Spanish Mission architecture is compatible with surrounding development and the proposed facility will be setback in excess of 200 feet from the southern property line, 100 feet from the western and northern property lines, and 80 - 90 feet from the eastern property line. These setbacks will include driveway access and parking as well as containing ample landscaping and passive recreational amenities. The southern setback will provide a buffer for adjacent single family residences and includes a passive landscaped pedestrian walk and connection to the project from the surrounding neighborhood. Only one access point is proposed to the site from Manzanita Street approximately 140 feet from the Aviara Parkway intersection thereby avoiding traffic conflicts with residential development to the south. Adequate parking has been provided as the project includes 54 parking spaces in accordance with the Parking Ordinance requirement of .45 spaces/bed for professional care facilities. The street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the use. Improvements in accordance with the Zone 6 Local Facilities Management Plan to El Camino Real and Aviara Parkway along the project's frontage ensure that the roadways and intersections will operate at acceptable levels through build-out. CUP 97-04/SUP 97-01/HDP 97-06/CDP 97-08 - SUNRISE LA COS FA December 17, 1997 Page 5 C3. Chapters 21.201 and 21.203 - Coastal Zones See discussion under section B. Mello IILCP above. C4. Chapters 21.95 - Hillside Development Regulations As required by the Hillside Ordinance, the areas of 40% slope have been identified as slopes separating terraced building pads which are excluded from the provisions of the Hillside Development Ordinance. This exclusion is justified since the slopes separating the terraced building pads were created by previously authorized grading. D. El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards The project is in conformance with the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards for Area 5. The proposed Spanish Mission architecture complies with the "Old California" theme. Building planes have articulation to prevent long, straight uninterrupted walls. Building height is 35' to the top of roof in compliance with the corridor standards and roof equipment will be screened by roof parapets. Grading required to develop the site is minimal and consistent with Area 5 standards limiting grading to a maximum of 10 feet of cut or fill. Setbacks proposed along El Camino Real are a minimum of 80 - 90 feet which exceed the required 45 foot minimum setback requirement. The signage standards for Area 5 of the ECR corridor permit freestanding stucco and wood monument signs which are 7 feet in height (above grade) and 12 feet in length. As illustrated on Exhibit "Q", the proposed monument sign at the corner of El Camino Real and Aviara Parkway is a 5 foot high and 12 foot long stucco and wood monument sign which is consistent with these standards. E. Growth Management The subject property is located within Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 6. The project consists of commercial living units which are not considered dwelling units; therefore, growth management standards based upon population and density are not applicable. The impacts on public facilities created by the proposed project and compliance with the adopted performance standards are summarized below: FACILITY City Administrative Facilities Library Wastewater Treatment Capacity Parks Drainage IMPACTS N/A N/A 86 EDU N/A N/A COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes CUP 97-04/SUP 97-01/HDf 97-06/CDP 97-08 - SUNRISE LA COS f A December 17, 1997 Page 6 Circulation* Fire Schools Sewer Collection System Water Distribution System Open Space 360 ADT Station #2 N/A 86EDU 12,760 g.p.d. 3.84 Acres Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes *The Zone 6 Plan, adopted on September 2,1987, identified improvements needed for existing plus committed traffic necessary for the intersection of El Camino Real (ECR) and Aviara Parkway (Alga Road). The improvements required for El Camino Real at Aviara Parkway include adding a free right turn lane eastbound to southbound, construction of an ECR median, and restriping of the intersection to add a second left turn lane on ECR. The project plans include a street striping plan indicating the number of lanes which will be provided. V.ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In 1991, the Planning Commission adopted a Conditional Negative Declaration for CUP 88- 21 (A) - Ayres Senior Center, which identified the impacts and necessary mitigation to reduce noise and drainage impacts resulting from congregate care professional care facility proposed on the site. The "Ayres" professional care facility would have accommodated a greater number of elderly residents and consisted of substantially greater grading quantities and approximately three times more building area than the proposed professional care facility. The project qualifies as subsequent development to the City's MEIR for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (EIR 93-01) certified in September 1994 in which a Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted for cumulative impacts to air quality and traffic which cannot be fully mitigated. The cumulative circulation impacts are regional in nature due to regional through traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. The cumulative air quality impacts are the result of the San Diego Air Basin being a non-attainment basin where any additional air emissions are considered significant. The environmental analysis performed for the proposed assisted living professional care facility identified no significant adverse impacts not previously identified, therefore, no further environmental review is required. In accordance with mitigation measures required by CUP 88-21 (A) Conditional Negative Declaration, the project is conditioned to require: 1) an acoustical analysis to determine the necessary sound insulation to ensure that interior noise levels do not exceed the City's 45 dBA CNEL noise standard prior to the issuance of building permits; and, 2) compliance with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. A Notice of Prior Compliance was prepared for the project and published in the North County Times Newspaper on October 30, 1997. A Notice of Determination will be filed upon the final action being taken on the project. CUP 97-04/SUP 97-01/HDl^ 97-06/CDP 97-08 - SUNRISE LA COS f A December 17, 1997 Page 7 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4212 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4213 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4214 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4215 5. Location Map 6. Background Data Sheet 7. Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance dated October 30,1997 8. Environmental Impact Assessment dated August 28,1997 9. Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form 10. Disclosure Form 11. Reduced Exhibits 12. Full Sized Exhibits "A" - "Y" dated December 17,1997. SUNRISE LA COSTA CUP 97-04/SUP 97-01 / HDP 97-06/CDP 97-08 BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NUMBER: CUP 97-04/SUP 97-01/HDP 97-06/CDP 97-08 CASE NAME: SUNRISE LA COSTA APPLICANT: SUNRISE DEVELOPMENT. INC. REQUEST AND LOCATION: An 85 room. 64.757 square foot concreeate care assisted living facility with a maximum of 120 beds located on a vacant, pre-graded 5.92 acre infill parcel located at the southwest corner of Aviara Parkway and El Camino Real in the RD-M zone (RM General Plan Designation) with access provided from Manzanita. an existing local residential street. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1. Carlsbad Tract 72-34 (Rancho La Costa). Unit No. 1. in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego. State of California, according to Map thereof. No. 8350 as recorded in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County dated July 29. 1976 APN: 215-504-11 Acres: 5.92 Acres Proposed No. of Lots/Units: 85 Commercial Living Units with a maximum of 120 beds. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation: RM Density Allowed 4-8 Density Proposed: Not Applicable Existing Zone: RD-M Proposed Zone: Not Applicable Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad's Zoning Requirements) Zoning Land Use Site RD-M Vacant North C-2 Shopping Center South R-l Single Family East RD-M El Camino Real Multi-Family Residential West RD-M Multi-Family Residential PUBLIC FACILITIES School District: CUSP Water District: CARLSBAD Sewer District: CARLSBAD Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 85 Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated: March 31. 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Negative Declaration, issued October 30. 1997 Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated_ Other, City of Carlsbad Planning Department PUBLIC NOTICE OF PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE Please Take Notice: The Planning Department has determined that the environmental effects of the project described below have already been considered in conjunction with previously certified environmental documents and, therefore, no additional environmental review will be required and a notice of determination will be filed. Project Title: Project Location: Project Description: SUNRISE CARLSBAD Southwest corner of Aviara Parkway and El Camino Real. A 64,757 square foot concregate care assisted living facility consisting of 85 residential rooms with a maximum of 120 beds located on a vacant, pre-graded 5.92 acre infill parcel in the RD-M Zone (Residential Medium Density General Plan Designation) with access provided from Manzanita Street in Local Facilities Management Zone 6. Justification for this determination 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 publication. DATED: CASE NO: OCTOBER 30, 1997 CUP 97-04/SUP 97-01/HDP 97-06/CDP 97-08 CASE NAME:SUNRISE CARLSBAD PUBLISH DATE: OCTOBER 30, 1997 MICHAEL J. Planning Director LER 2O75 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 - (619) 438-1161 - FAX (619) 438-0894 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CUP 97-04/SUP 97-01/HDP 97-067 CDP 97-08 DATE: AUGUST 28. 1997 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Sunrise Carlsbad 2.APPLICANT: William D. Shields. Sunrise Development. Inc. 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 12701 Treeridge Terrace. Powav. CA 9204. PH: (619) 748-0201 4. 5. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: March 31.1997 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 64.757 square foot concregate care assisted living facility consisting of 85 residential rooms with a maximum of 120 beds located on a vacant, pre-graded 5.92 acre infill parcel at the southwest corner of Aviara Parkway and El Camino Real in the RD- M zone (Residential Medium Density General Plan Designation) with access provided from Manzanita Street in Local Facilities Management Zone 6. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. | | Land Use and Planning | | Population and Housing | [ Geological Problems Q Water M Air Quality |^[ Transportation/Circulation [~~] Public Services [ | Biological Resources | | Utilities & Service Systems [~~| Energy & Mineral Resources | | Aesthetics [~~[ Hazards | [ Cultural Resources ^ Noise |~~| Recreation [~~] Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03/28/96 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) Q I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. (~] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect hi this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A 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. A Mitigated 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 MEIR/Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier MEIR/Mitigated 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 M Planning Director^ Signature Date Rev. 03/28/96 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a,significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. • "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. • "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. • "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. • Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. • A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. Rev. 03/28/96 • If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. • An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Sources #1,2 (page 7): b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?(Sources #1, #4) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (Source 2 (page 7) & 8). e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture?(Source #4) b) Seismic ground shaking? (Source #4) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (Source #4) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Source #4) Landslides or mudflows?(Source #4) d) e) 0 Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (Source #4) g) Subsidence of the land? (Source #4) h) Expansive soils? (Source #4) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (Source #4) IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (Source #2, page 6) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (Source #2, page 6) Potentially Significant Impact D D D n D D D D D D D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D n D D D n Dnn nn nn Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact D El D H D "El D El D El n EI n EI n EI n isn EIn EI n EIn EIn EI n EIn mn m n n Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (Source #2,) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? Sources #1 and #2 (page 6)) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (Source #2, page 6) f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (Sources #1, #4) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (Sources #1,4) h) Impacts to groundwater quality?(Source # 1, #4) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies?(Source # 1, #4) Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D Less Than Significan t Impact D D D D D D D D D No Impact D V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation?(Source #1) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?(Source #1) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? D D D D D D D D D D D D VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?(Source #1) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)?(Source #1) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Source # 1) D D D D a a aaa a a a a a 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? D D D Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? Source #1 b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? Source #1 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 #1 Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D 0 D D D Less Than Significan t Impact D D D D D D D No Impact IE) IE) IE) Bl IE) IE) IE1 IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source # 1) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (Source #1) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? Source #1 D D D D n n D D Q D D D D X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Source #3) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Source #3) D D D D D D 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?(Source #2) b) Police protection? (Source # 1) c) Schools? (Source #2) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (Source #1) e) Other governmental services? (Sources 1 and 2 ) D D D D D D D D D Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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 #1 ) b) Communications systems? (Source #1) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (Sources 1 & 2) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Sources 1 & 2) e) Storm water drainage? (Sources 1 & 2) f) Solid waste disposal? (Source #1) g) Local or regional water supplies? (Source # 1) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (Source #5) b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical resources? d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? XV. ' RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D D D D D D . D D D D D n Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D ..D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact D El D IE! D . m n mn EI D IEn EI EI n n EIn EI n EIn EIn EIn EI n EI n EI n EI Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Potentially Significant Impact D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D Less Than Significan t Impact No Impact D D D D Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. "Conditional Negative Declaration" for the Ayres Senior Center dated January 10,1991. "General Plan Update Master EIR" dated September 6, 1994. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. See discussion and source documents listed after each category. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions for the project. Mitigation measures incorporated as conditions are: 1. Compliance with NPDES standards. 2. Sound attenuation necessary to reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA CNEL - to be based upon noise analysis conducted for building permits. Rev. 03/28/96 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I.c&d. The project site is a 5.92 acre parcel designated for medium density (4-8 du/acre) residential development and zoned to allow multi-family development. The proposed use is allowed upon findings that the use is compatible with surrounding development. Although the proposed assisted living facility will provide housing and daily care for a maximum of 120 residents within the 64,757 square foot facility, the projected traffic generation, parking requirements, and building area are approximately the same or less than the requirements for a 30 unit apartment or condominium project. The site is surrounded on three sides by roadways and one side by a 100 foot SDG&E easement ' which separates it from adjacent single family residential development. Surrounding uses include El Camino Real, a six lane prime arterial and Aviara Parkway, a 4 lane major arterial separating the project from the Plaza Paseo Real community commercial shopping center. A large, multi-family condominium project is located directly across the access street (Manzanita) from the proposed site. Given the above described circumstances, the use would be consistent with existing development and buffered from single family development to the south; therefore the proposed use would not be incompatible with existing land uses or disrupt an existing neighborhood. Il.a-c. Although the maximum occupancy of 120 residents proposed for the facility would exceed the number permitted by the General Plan for a residential housing project the City distinguishes these commercial living units from residential units since the service needs of the elderly occupants are delivered by the assisted living facility and presumed to be lower than those of the general population. The site is located in Zone 6 where all public facilities are provided to satisfy any additional demand generated by the use. The proposed site is a vacant pregraded infill parcel with surrounded by existing major roadways and served by utilities; therefore, it will not induce substantial growth in an undeveloped area or displace existing housing. Ill.a-i. Based upon the conclusions of the Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the site involving a proposal for a much more extensive project, the project site will not be exposed to geologic hazards or subject to failures, and the project will be conditioned to comply with the recommendations of the report. The current grading proposal involves minor grading since current topographic conditions would be retained through terracing the structure over the existing terraced building pad. V. 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. 10 Rev. 03/28/96 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. V.b-c. The proposed structure is within the City's height limitation and will occupy only 10% of the overall site; therefore, it will not alter the air movement or temperature. The use, which is a commercial assisted living facility which provides residential care and medical assistance for the elderly, is subject to County Health Department licensing which would avoid the probability of objectionable odors due to unsanitary conditions. VI. Circulation The project will be conditioned to construct all frontage street improvements in accordance with City Standards as well as to construct the remaining improvements to the Aviara Parkway/El Camino Real consistent with the Zone 6 LFM Plan roadway improvements required to ensure acceptable levels of service through buildout in accordance with Growth Management performance standards.. 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 11 Rev. 03/28/96 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. VII.a-e. The proposed site consists of a pre-graded terraced building pad with no existing sensitive biological resources. IX.a-e. The assisted living facility would provide care for the elderly and poses no significant health risk or hazard. The project will be landscaped with low fuel species and maintained to avoid fire hazards. The project's location immediately adjacent to Aviara Parkway will enable emergency vehicles to access the site without disturbing the surrounding neighborhood and adequate onsite circulation and parking to satisfy the project's demand will avoid vehicular traffic or parking on Manzanita. X.a-b. The project will not increase existing noise levels, however, the project is subject to exterior noise levels which exceed 60 dBA due to its location along two circulation arterial roadways. The noise level within the southern courtyard/patio will not exceed 60 dBA, however, the outdoor play area and garden at the northeastern corner of the site will experience noise levels of 67 dBA CNEL. Mitigation for this area would require the construction of a 9' high berm or 13' high wall along El Camino Real. The project will be conditioned to require an acoustical analysis to determine the necessary sound insulation to ensure that interior noise levels do not exceed the City's 45 dBA CNEL noise standard prior to the issuance of building permits. XHI.a-c. The project is adjacent to El Camino Real, a scenic corridor, which requires the approval of a Special Use Permit to ensure compliance with the "El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards". The proposed project design is consistent with these standards since the project exceeds the required 45' building setback, adheres to the Old California/Hispanic architectural theme, will comply with monument sign area requirements, maintains existing grade, and does not exceed 35' in building height. The project is located at the intersection of two circulation arterial roadways directly across the street from a community commercial shopping center where significant lighting exists. The project provides ample setbacks from all property lines and 12 Rev. 03/28/96 roadways and coverage is 10% of the site thereby avoiding significant amounts of additional light and glare at this location. The project will be required to submit a parking lot lighting plan prior to building permit issuance, however, lighting will not impact surrounding development due to the central location on the site of the structure, parking aisle and spaces. XIV. The project site is a previously graded infill parcel. XV. The project is an assisted living professional care facility in which limited passive recreational amenities to serve the residents will be provided.. This type of facility is not anticipated to generate additional demand for public parks. Existing recreational opportunities in the area will not be disturbed or impacted by the development. The project is designed with a small passive pedestrian walk within the lower terrace adjacent to the existing single family residential development which is connected to the project's onsite pedestrian circulation. Neighborhood residents may access and utilize the pedestrian walkways and children's play area located within the development. SOURCE DOCUMENTS; 1. "Final Master EIR for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update" prepared by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department and certified September 6,1994. 2. "Conditional Negative Declaration - CUP 88-21(A)/SUP 89-5(A)", dated January 10, 1991 and "Environmental Impact Assessment - Part II" dated December 20, 1990. 3. "Environmental Noise Assessment" prepared by DUDEK & ASSOCIATES dated June 12,1997. 4. "Mello II Segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program", certified June 1,1981. 5. "El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards", dated February 8, 1984. 13 Rev. 03/28/96 CITY OF CARLSBAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM (To be Submitted with Development Application) PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT: FILE NAME AND NO: Sunrise LaCosta - CUP 97-04 SUP 97-01/HDP 97-06/CDP 97-08 LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 6 GENERAL. PLAN: RM . ZONING: RD-M DEVELOPER'S NAME: Sunrise Development Inc. ADDRESS: 12701 Treeridee Terrace. Powav CA 92064 PHONE NO.: (619} 748-0201 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 215-504-11 QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 5.92 ac. 67.757 so. ft ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: A. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = N/A B. Library: Demand in Square Footage = N/A C. Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 12.760 GPP D. Park: Demand in Acreage = N/A E. Drainage: Demand in CFS = N/A Identity Drainage Basin = N/A (Identity master plan facilities on site plan) F. Circulation: Demand in ADTs = 360 APT (Identify Trip Distribution on site plan) G. Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 2 H. Open Space: Acreage Provided = 3.84 Acres I. Schools: N/A (Demands to be determined by staff) J. Sewer: Demands in EDUs 58 EDU Identify Sub Basin = 6A (Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan) K. Water: Demand in GPP = 27.760 GPP L. The project will not create units pursuant to the Growth Management Program. City of Carlsbad Planning Department DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee. The following information must be disclosed: 1. APPLICANT List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application. OWNER List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names and addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 4. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names and addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the trust. 2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-0894 5. Have you had me. than $250 worth of business transited with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months? Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s):. Person is defined as "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit." NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. Print or type name of owrrer Print or type name of applicant Disclosure Statement 10/96 Page 2 of 2 P 97-04 / SUP 97-01 / HDP 97-06 / CDP 97-08 SUNRISE LA COSTA SHEET 1 OF 6 — ^v> ex s ica X""' x\ SIRHm DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, me. M AM «>M-IU»II«. a mi(TU) M*-<I41 CUP 97-04 / SUP 97-01 / HDP 97-06 / CDP 97-08 SUNRISE LA COSTA SHEET 2 OF 6 CUP 97-04 / SUP 97-01 / HDP 97-06 / CDP 97-08 SUNRISE LA COSTA ' i PROP. \ \'STORM DRAIN Vv '. . \ SDCO DUDEK 4ASSOCIATES, me. •> BM IM*-hWlM 0(TM) Mt-««t CNONCEII or <roin> SHEET 3 OF 6 CUP 97-04 / SUP 97-01 / HDP 97-06 / CDP 97-08 SUNRISE LA COSTA DUDEK kASSOCIATES, me. (TM) Damn or WOKK SHEET 4 OF 6 s; i COoo UI« DC CO COo fi.O5 0.oo <D O h-O3 O) a. CO o =r a> a. O CUP 97-04 / SUP 97-01 / HDP 97-06 CDP 97-08 SUNRISE LA COSTA AVIARA PARKWAY- Existing Striping AVIARA PARKWAY- Proposed Striping SHEET B OF 6 DIJUKK It A?SOriA1FS, m PARTNERSHIP ARCHTECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS SUNRISE ASSISTED LMNG ot CARLSBAD SD-2 TERRACE FLOOR PLAN 13,710 S.F. I THEI HILLI PAR1NERSHIPI INC ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INIFRIOHS 1» IMMIV 91.IM) SIH SUNRISE ASSISTED LIVING ol CARLSBAD ©IK Hll SD-3 FIRST FLOOR PLAN 25,520 9.F. as1H| HILLPARINERSHIPINC AflCHTKTURF PLANNING INTERIORS SUNWSE ASSISTED LIVING ol CARLSBAD SD-4 SECOND FLOOR PLAN 24.MO S.F. :::= THE PARTNERSHIPINC. SJffl! ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS NORTH ELEVATION SUNRISE ASSISTED LIVING of CARLSBAD WEST ELEVATION SD-5 Ht!BS°"PtlsTIR TMSH THEHILLPARTNERSHIPINC SOUTH ELEVATION SUNRISE ASSISTED LMNG of CARLSBAD RSf EAST ELEVATION SD-6 RgTNERSW ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS . ENTRY ELEVATION SUNRISE ASSISTED UV1NG of CARLSBAD SD-7