Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 05-03; DKN Hotel; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (4)4 EXPANDED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I CASENQ:. DATE: BACKGROUND 1. CASENAME: DKN - Hampton Inn 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Ave. Carisbad, CA 92008 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Department Staff (760) 602-4600 4. PROJECT LOCATION: The project is located on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard between Pine Avenue and Oak Avenue. 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: DKN Hotels 540 Golden Circle Drive #214 Santa Ana, CA 92705 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential High (RH); proposed change to Village (V) 7. ZONUSIG: Residential (R-3); proposed change to Commercial Tourist (C-T) 8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., pemiits, financing approval or participation agreements): City of Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Department 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The proposed project involves a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit, and Local Coastal Program Amendment to change the General Plan designation from Residential High Density (RH) to Village (V) and the zoning from Residential (R-3) to Commercial Tourist (C-T). The project site is two parcels (203-250-08, 203-250-26) totaling .84 acres. The site is located on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard between Pine Avenue and Oak Avenue. The project proposes to construct a Hampton Inn - Suites hotel on the site. The hotel will contain 101 rooms and suites totaling 60,251 square feet. 122 parking spaces are proposed, and automobile access will take via Carlsbad Boulevard. There will be "loading only" access via Lincoln Street. The 2 parcels are currently occupied by the Surf Motel, The Armenian Cafe, and a single family dweUing. Theses structures will be demolished, removed and replaced with the proposed Hampton Inn - Suites. The site is located within Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) Zone 1 in the northwest quadrant of the City of Carlsbad. Surrounding properties include a 7-11 convenience store to the north, single-family dwellings to the south, multi-family units to the east and a hotel to the west. Rev. 07/26/02 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. 1 1 Aesthetics • 1 1 Agricultural Resources • ^ Air Quality • 1 1 Biological Resources • 1 1 Cultural Resources • • Significance I I Noise I I Population and Housing I I Public Services I I Recreation ^ Transportation/Circulation I I Utilities & Service Systems ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Enviromnental 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 significantly adverse, 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 fi-om "Potentially Significant Impacf 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 significantly adverse. Rev. 07/26/02 • Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but all potentially significant adverse 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. • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant adverse 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 adverse effect on the environment. • If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse 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 adverse 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 adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse 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. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact • • • • • • • • • X • • • X IL AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES - (In detennining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the Califomia Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the Califomia Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Califomia Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstmct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? • • • H • • • • • • • m • M • • • • Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by Califomia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by Califomia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vemal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological intermption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Confiict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Confiict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Potentially Significant Impact • • • • • Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated • • • • • • Less Than Significant No Impact Impact • • • • • • • • • s • m • • • s • • • s Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paieontologi- cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or stmctures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Potentially Significant Impact • • • • • • • • Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact • • • S • • • • • • • • • • • • K • m • m • m • • K • • • • • Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? Potentially Significant Impact • Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated • Less Than Significant Impact • No Impact e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or altemative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? VIL HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Govemment Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? • • • K • • • • • • • • • • • • n \j n m • • • K • • • H Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) h) Expose people or stmctures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Impacts to groundwater quality? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? Potentially Significant Impact • • • • • Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated • • • • • Less Than Significant No Impact Impact • m m • m • • • e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the fiow rate or amount (volume) of surface mnoff in a marmer, which would result in flooding on- or off- site? f) Create or contribute mnoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted mnoff? g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? • • S • • • • • • • K • • • Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area stmctures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? j) Expose people or stmctures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving fiooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. Potentially Significant Impact • • • Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated • • • • • Less Than Significant No Impact Impact • S • K • • m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? • • H • n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following constmction? o) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an envu-onmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of fiiture value to the region and the residents of the State? • • • • • • • • K • K • • • H • • K • m • • • S • • • S 10 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? XL NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundboume vibration or groundboume noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Potentially Significant Impact • • • • Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated • • • • • • Less Than Significant No Impact Impact • K • • • • m e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastmcture)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the constmction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the constmction of replacement housing elsewhere? • • • S • • • K • • • • • • • K • • 11 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) XIIL PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered govemment facilities, a need for new or physically altered govemment facilities, the constmction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • s b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the constmction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in fraffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing fraffic load and capacity of the sfreet system (i.e., resuh in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle frips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at mtersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? • • • S • • • S • • • 12 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) c) Result in a change in air fraffic pattems, including either an increase in fraffic levels or a change in location that results m substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in insufficient parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting altemative fransportation (e.g., bus tum- outs, bicycle racks)? XVL UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS project: Would the a) Exceed wastewater freatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Confrol Board? b) Require or result in the constmction of new water or wastewater freatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the constmction of which would cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the constmction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the constmction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact • • • K • • • • • • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • Kl • • • K • e) Result in a determination by the wastewater freatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? • • • • • • m • • m • K 13 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) XVII. 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 resfrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Califomia history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumula- tively 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 fiiture projects?) c) Does the project have envfronmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either dfrectly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact • • K • • • K • • • H • 14 Rev. 07/03/02 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The following is a technical explanation for each answer provided in the checklist provided on the previous pages. After each question is posed, a summary of the existing conditions is presented, followed by an analysis of potential project impacts, the finding and appropriate factual justification. In cases where the finding is "Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated", the finding is followed by a description of the mitigation measures that would reduce the impact to below a level of significance. Information sources are cited for each discussion. L AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Existing Condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and single family home site. The site is visible from Carlsbad Boulevard to the west. Carlsbad Boulevard is considered a Community Theme Corridcr in the City of Carlsbad General Plan, and the site is currently landscaped according to the standards of the Carlsbad Scenic Corridor Guidelines Manual. Environmental Evaluation: The subject project will be visible to drivers and pedestrians on Carlsbad Boulevard. Landscaping along Carlsbad Boulevard will help screen the project from motorists. The proposed project calls for one building, which wUl have a maximum height of 35 feet. This height is consistent with the height of other buildings in the area. Finding: Less than significant impact - The proposed project will replace the existing Surf Motel and other uses. The new structure will not significantly impact the viewshed from either the surrounding uses or fi-om Carlsbad Boulevard. Temporary impacts associated with construction of the project will not be significant. The project will conform to the City of Carlsbad Scenic Corridor Guidelines for construction and setbacks relating to Community Theme Corridors. Therefore, the project will not have a substantially adverse impact on any scenic vista. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and single family home site. No buildings, including historic buildings, are located in or adjacent to the site. The site is not located within the viewshed of a State scenic highway or any State highway that is designated by CalTrans as eligible for listing as a scenic highway. Environmental Evaluation: Since no frees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings, and no State scenic highways are in the vicinity of the proposed project, no significant impact to such resources is anticipated. Finding: No impact - The site is not within the viewshed of a state scenic highway or any state highway that is designated by CalTrans as eligible for listing. Please also refer to the preceding response. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and single family home site. 15 Rev. 07/03/02 Environmental Evaluation: Permanent visual impacts of the proposed project will involve the construction of a three-story hotel. Temporary impacts associated with construction will be short-term and not significant. A similar hotel currently occupies the site. No impacts to open spaces will be caused by the proposed project. Therefore, it is concluded that the project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Finding: No impact - Please also refer to response 1(a), above. d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Existing condition: The subject area presently contains exterior building mounted and parking area lights for the Surf Motel. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project presently contains exterior building mounted and parking area lights. The proposal will not significantly change the lighting characteristics of the existing building. The project will submit a lighting plan to the Planning Department as part of the approval process. Finding: No impact - It is concluded that the proposed project will not result in a new source of substantial light and glare and will not significantly afifect day or nighttime views in the area. n. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed. There is no farmland on the site. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project will not impact farmland. Finding: No impact - The project site is currently developed and no farmland exists. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Existing condition: See Iia above. Environmental Evaluation: See lla above. Finding: No impact - See IIa above. c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? Existing condition: See IIa above. Environmental Evaluation: See IIa above. Finding: No impact - See Iia above. 16 Rev. 07/03/02 in. AIR QUALITY - Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and single family home site. The project area has a warm-summer Mediterranean climate characterized by warm, dry summers and mild, wet winters. The dominant meteorological feature affecting the region is the Pacific High Pressure Zone, which produces prevailing winds from the west to northwest. These winds tend to blow pollutants away from the coast toward the inland areas. Consequently, air quality near the coast is generally better than that which occurs at the base of the coastal mountain range. Fluctuations in the strength and pattem of winds from the Pacific High Pressure Zone interacting with the daily local cycle produce periodic temperature inversions that influence the dispersal or containment of air pollutants in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) was enacted in 1970 and amended in 1977 and 1990 for the purposes of protecting and enhancing the quality of the nation's air resources to benefit the public's health, welfare and productivity. In 1971, in order to achieve the purposes of the CAA, the EPA developed primary and secondary national ambient air quality standards. Six pollutants of primary concem were designated; ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead and suspended particulates. A proposed project's afr quality impacts must be addressed relative to compliance with the standards adopted pursuant to these pollutants. The proposed project is located in the northwestem portion of the SDAB and will be required to comply with all San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD) Rules and Regulations. Air emissions will be produced during construction, however this construction period will be temporary in nature. The SDAB is a federal and state non-attainment area for ozone (O3), and a state non-attainment area for respirable particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PMio). The applicable attainment plan for these criteria pollutants is the Regional Air Quality Strategy, which is prepared and administered by the San Diego APCD. Environmental Evaluation: Short-term air quality impacts during construction of the .84 acre project would occur from heavy equipment exhaust emissions, construction-related frips by workers, delivery trucks, and material hauling trucks, and from associated fugitive dust generation. Heavy construction equipment is usually diesel-powered. In general, emissions from diesel-powered equipment contain more nifrogen oxide compounds (NOx), sulfur oxide compounds (SOx), and PMio, and less carbon monoxide (CO) and reactive organic compounds (ROCs), than emissions from gasoline-powered engines. NOx compounds and ROCs are precursors to ozone formation. Approximately 2,047 cubic yards of finish grading will result from the proposed project. The amount of grading will be balanced on-site, so no export/import of earth will occur. Nonetheless, construction is anticipated to involve equipment such as tractors, scrapers, backhoes, cranes, graders, dump and concrete trucks, and miscellaneous fractor-trailer delivery trucks. The type of equipment that may be found at any one time at the site during the construction period will vary. The construction operation is anticipated to extend 6 to 10 months in duration, although heavy machinery will not be in operation during this entire period. Short term sources of construction-related air emissions include (a) fugitive dust from grading 17 Rev. 07/03/02 activities, (b) construction exhaust, and (c) consfruction related by worker commute, delivery trucks, and material-hauling trucks. The APCD does not have specific significance thresholds for air pollutants generated during constmction. However, the APCD does specify Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) Trigger Levels for review of new stationary sources. Although these frigger levels are specified for stationary sources, they are used here to assess the potential impacts due to air emissions during project construction. The AQIA construction Trigger Levels are defined as: NOx 250 pounds per day SOx 250 pounds per day CO 550 pounds per day PMio 100 pounds per day No AQIA Trigger Levels specified for ROCs have been adopted. If anticipated project emissions exceed any of these Trigger Levels, a more detailed Air Quality Impact Analysis may be required by the APCD. For this evaluation, project construction air emissions were estimated using the Califomia Air Resources Board Urbemis7G version 3.2 air emission estimation program. The Urbemis7G program does not include emission factors for SOx compounds. The equipment emission factors used in Urbemis7G are the same as those found in the South Coast Air Quality Management Disfrict CEQA Air Quality Handbook, and the Handbook does include emission factors for SOx compounds. A comparison of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook NOx and SOx compound emission factors reveals that the SOx emission factors are consistently less than the corresponding NOx emission factors for the same types of equipment. Therefore, it can be concluded that the total SOx emissions from a project will be less than the total NOx emissions from that project. The San Diego APCD Trigger Levels for NOx and SOx compounds are the same (250 pounds per day). Consequently, for this assessment it can be concluded that if the total NOx emissions projected by Urbemis7G are less than the AQIA Trigger Levels, then the total SOx emissions will also be below the Trigger Levels. As indicated, the amount and types of equipment on-site at any one time during the constmction period will vary. This assessment conservatively assumes that all of the projected equipment could be working on-site simultaneously. Under this assumption, the maximum projected daily air emissions during construction would be: NOx 158 pounds per day SOx <158 pounds per day CO 92 pounds per day PMio 26 pounds per day Regarding vehicular emissions from the proposed development, the air quality analyses identify motor vehicles as the primary source of emissions associated with development projects such as the one proposed on the subject site. The long-term vehicular frips to and from the project may contribute significant amounts of air pollutant emissions. The proposed project will consist of a three-story hotel. The project specific traffic report, prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan projects the project's ADT will be 707 (lOl room hotel @ 7 ADT/room). This will be an increase of 391 ADT over the 316 ADT currently generated by the Surf Motel and 18 Rev. 07/03/02 restaurant. The project specific traffic report has been included as part of the project's initial application package. Finding: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated - The project is located within a basin that has a nonattainment status and the project would confribute pollutants, thereby having a cumulatively significant air quality impact unless mitigation measures are adopted. Controls for construction equipment and procedures such as dust confrol during construction are regulated by the Afr Pollution Confrol District (ACPD). The project is required to comply with all APCD Rules and Regulations. All project construction is required to incorporate best management practices to reduce dust and air pollution impacts. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and single family home site. The property is in a non-attainment status area, and the proposed project would confribute additional pollution emissions. Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to the preceding technical evaluation in Section Ill(a). Finding: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated - Emission confrols for construction equipment and procedures such as dust confrol during construction are regulated by the Air Pollution Confrol Disfrict (ACPD). The project is required to comply with all APCD Rules and Regulations. Any air emissions produced during constmction of the tenant improvements would be temporary. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and single family home site. The property is in a non-attainment status area, and the proposed project would confribute additional pollution emissions. Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to the technical evaluation in Section Ill(a). The project would confribute to pollution emissions however it is consistent with the City of Carlsbad General Plan, the City of Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, and the City of Carlsbad Master Envfronmental Impact Report (MEIR 93-01). The site is in use for urban development presently. Finding: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated - Emission confrols for construction equipment and procedures such as dust confrol during cpnstruction are regulated by the Air Pollution Confrol Disfrict (ACPD). The project is required to comply with all APCD Rules and Regulations. Any air emissions produced during constmction of the tenant improvements would be temporary. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Existing condition: No sensitive air quality receptors are located near the subject site. Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to evaluation at Ill(a). The project would not alter wind pattems, moisture levels or temperatures in the area. Finding: No impact - Please refer to response to Ill(a). 19 Rev. 07/03/02 e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and single family home site. Environmental Evaluation: Urban development of hotel uses such as those proposed have not been shown to result in the creation of objectionable odors. There is no evidence that the proposed project will be any different than those previously analyzed and developed in Carlsbd. Finding: No Impact - No significant odors are anticipated from the proposed project. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and single family home site. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project will replace an existing use. The site is fiilly developed and there are no special status, candidate or sensitive biological species on site. Finding: No Impact - No direct impacts to sensitive vegetation protected by CDFG and/or USFWS will occur through implementation of the subject project. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Existing condition: Please refer to explanation of existing condition Section IV(a). No impacts are anticipated. Environmental Evaluation: No permanent impacts to wetlands vegetation would result from implementation of the project. Finding: No Impact - No direct impacts to sensitive vegetation protected by CDFG and/or USFWS will occur through implementation of the subject project. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and single family home site. No direct filling, hydrological interruption or other impacts to "waters of the U.S." will take place due to the implementation of the subject project. Environmental Evaluation: No impact to wetlands or "waters" is anticipated from the project. 20 Rev. 07/03/02 Finding: No impact - The project site does not contain any federally protected wetlands or "waters" as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Existing condition: Please refer to existing condition response IV(a). Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to existing condition response IV(a). Finding: No impact - The subject property is an already developed industrial building in a developed business park. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Existing condition: The City of Carlsbad has no adopted free preservation policy or ordinance which would affect the subject project. In addition, the subject property is an already developed indusfrial building in a developed business park. Environmental Evaluation: The subject project will not impact frees or other biological resources protected by policy or ordinance. Finding: No impact - No free preservation impacts will result from implementation of the project. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and single family home site. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed use is located in an urban area and is consistent with the Habitat Management Plan. The Habitat Management Plan allows urban development of the site. Finding: No impact - The proposed project is consistent with the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan. g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? Existing condition: Please refer to evaluation in response to Section IV(a). Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to evaluation in response to Section IV(a). Finding: No impact - Please refer to response IV(a) and IV(b) above. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §1 5064.5? 21 Rev. 07/03/02 Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and single family home site. Environmental Evaluation: No impacts to historical resources will result from implementation of the proposed project. Finding: No impact - The subject site is currently developed and demolition will not result in impacts to historical resources. No historical resources have been identified on the site or within the vicinity of the project; and therefore no impacts to historical resources will result from constmction of the project. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Existing condition: Please refer to evaluation in response to Section V(a). Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to evaluation in response to Section V(a). Finding: No impact - Please refer to evaluation in response to Section V(a). c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paieontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Existing condition: Please refer to evaluation in response to Section V(a). Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to evaluation in response to Section V(a). Finding: No impact - Please refer to evaluation in response to Section V(a). d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Existing condition: Please refer to evaluation in response to Section V(a). Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to evaluation in response to Section V(a). Finding: No impact - Please refer to evaluation in response to Section V(a). VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence ofa known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Existing condition: The project area is situated in the westem portion of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province of southem Califomia. This geomorphic province encompasses an area that extends 125 miles from the Transverse Ranges and the Los Angeles Basin, south to the Mexican border, and 22 Rev. 07/03/02 in San Diego County, in which the site is located, generally consists of Upper Cretaceous, Tertiary and Quatemary age sedimentary rocks. The most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the north San Diego County area, indicates that the project is considered to be in a seismically active area, as is most of southem Califomia. This map however, indicates that the subject site is not underlain by knovm active faults, nor is there evidence of ground displacement in the area during the last 11,000 years. The Newport-Inglewood fault zone is the closest known fault, which is the onshore portion of an extensive fault zone that includes the Offshore Zone of Deformation and the Rose Canyon fault to the north of the subject site. This fault zone, located approximately four miles westerly of the subject site, is made of predominately right-lateral strike-slip faults that extend south-southeast through the San Diego metropolitan area. The zone extends offshore at La Jolla, and continues north-northwest generally parallel to the coastline. Portions of the Rose Canyon fault zone in the San Diego area have been recognized by the State Geologist to be considered active. Additionally, the Julian and Temecula segments of the Elsinore fault zone, about 23 miles to the northeast ofthe subject site are also referenced in the Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Environmental Evaluation: No active faults have been mapped across the project site. The closest fault is located approximately four miles westerly of the site. The Elsinore fault zone is located approximately 25 miles east of the site, and the Coronado Bank fault is located approximately 20 miles west of the site. The potential for rupture resulting from earthquake is considered to be low. The subject site is not within a fault-rupture hazard zone as indexed in the Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Because of the lack of known active faults on the site, the potential for surface mpture at the site is considered low. The seismic hazard most likely to impact the site is ground shaking resulting from an earthquake on one of the active regional faults discussed above. Finding: Less than significant impact - The project site is not within a fault-rupture hazard zone as determined in the geotechnical report, and as indexed in the Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42; therefore the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? Existing condition: Southem Califomia is recognized as a seismically-active area. As indicated in the response to Item VI(a)(i), the Newport-Inglewood fault zone is the closest known fault, located approximately four miles westerly of the subject site. This faufr is made of predominately right-lateral strike-slip faults that extend south-southeast through the San Diego metropolitan area. The second-closest active area of potential ground motion is the Julian and Temecula segments of the Elsinore fault zone. No other known active faults are located within the vicinity of the project. The most significant seismic event likely to affect the proposed facilities would be a maximum moment magnitude 7.1 earthquake along the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, which could produce an estimated horizontal peak ground acceleration of .37g at the site. Environmental Evaluation: The project site will likely be subject to ground shaking in response to either a local moderate or more distant large-magnitude earthquake. Seismic risk at the site is comparable to the risk for the San Diego area in general. The closest source to the site for ground motion, and the 23 Rev. 07/03/02 source that would produce the greatest ground acceleration at the site, is Newport-Inglewood fault zone, about four miles west, and potentially the Julian and Temecula segments of the Elsinore fault zone, about 25 miles to the northeast of the project site. Finding: Less than significant impact -Earthquake faults exist within southem Califomia, including three fault zones within 23 miles of the site. Historical records have indicated however, that the risk of sfrong seismic ground shaking of the project site is minimal, and thus is considered a less than significant impact. The building was constructed following the Uniform Building Code standards that were in effect at the time of construction to minimize the effects of strong seismic ground shaking during a seismic event. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Existing condition: Liquefaction of soils with minimal cohesion can be caused by sfrong vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Research indicates that loose granular soils and silts that are saturated by a relatively shallow groundwater table are most susceptible to liquefaction. The site is currently fiilly developed with an existing motel, restaurant, and single family home. Environmental Evaluation: The site is currently developed fiiUy and the proposed project will replace the existing building. The new building will be constmcted following the Uniform Building Code standards in effect at the time of consfruction to minimize the effects of liquefaction during a seismic event. Leighton Consulting indicates that the on-site soils are not considered liquefiable due to their relatively dense condition and absence of a shallow ground water condition. Finding: Less than significant impact - The potential for liquefaction or seismically induced settlement in the vicinity of the proposed improvements is considered to be very low due to the nature of the underlying soil formation and the lack of groundwater near the surface. iv. Landslides? Existing condition: No landslides have been identified as having the potential to damage or affect the proposed project facilities. Environmental Evaluation: No landslides are anticipated to affect the proposed project development improvements. Finding: No impact - No landslides are anticipated to affect the proposed project, b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and single family home site. Environmental Evaluation: The existing motel, restaurant, and home will be replaced by a new three- story hotel. During the finish grading, the exposure of soils would lead to an increased chance for the erosion of soils from the site. Such grading will follow best management practices for the control of erosion, such as straw bale or sandbag barriers, silt fences, slope roughening, and outlet protection in exposed areas. Finished grades will be promptly hydroseeded or otherwise protected as required per the adopted City Grading Ordinance. If necessary, temporary slope cover such as jute matting or mulch will be applied to newly graded slopes to reduce the impact to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil to a level of less than significant. 24 Rev. 07/03/02 Finding: Less than significant impact - It is concluded that impacts to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil will be less than significant, because the project is required to comply with the erosion confrol requirements of the City of Carlsbad grading ordinance. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result ofthe project, and potentiaUy result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Existing condition: Please refer to existing condition VI(a)(i, ii, and iii). Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to evaluation VI(a)(i, ii, and iii). Finding: Less than significant impact - Please refer to response VI(a)(i, ii, and iii). d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18-1-B ofthe Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? Existing condition: Preliminary geotechmcal evaluation of the subject site indicates that the site is underlain by Quatemary-aged Terrace Deposits which overlies the Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation. The Quatemary-aged Terrace Deposits are encountered at shallow depths and consist of orange-brown, damp to slightly moist, medium dense to very dense silty fine to medium grained sands. The Tertiary- aged Santiago Formation underlies the entire site at depth and generally consists of light brown to light gray silty sandstones. Environmental Evaluation: Expansion testing indicated that the Quatemary-aged Terrace Deposits as having "very low" to "low" expansion potential. The soil should be prepared and compacted as directed in the Geotechnical Investigation by Leighton Associates, and footings/slabs for all buildings should be constructed as directed in Leighton's report. Finding: No impact - As a result of proper grading, compaction and foundation work, the project will not be subject to adverse soil expansion tendencies. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Existing condition: Sewers are available for the proposed project. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project will utilize access to the existing sewage trunk line serving the property. As a result, no septic tanks or altemative wastewater disposal system facilities are proposed. Finding: No impact - No septic tanks or altemative sewage disposal systems are included in the project description. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 25 Rev. 07/03/02 Existing condition: During construction of the proposed project, construction materials such as petroleum products, paint, oils and solvents will be fransported and used on the site. Upon completion of construction of the project, some use of hazardous cleaning products on the site may occur. Other than during this construction phase, the project will not routinely utilize hazardous substances or materials. Environmental Evaluation: There is no evidence of chemical surface staining, or hazardous materials/waste and/or petroleum contamination on the site. Construction of the proposed project will involve operation of heavy machinery, which utilizes pefroleum products, paint, oils and solvents. No permanent use of such hazardous materials is anticipated except for some cleaning products used within normal business operations. All transport, handling, use, and disposal of any cleaning substances will comply with all federal, state, and local laws regulating the management and use of such materials. Finding: Less than significant impact - It is concluded that the routine amount of hazardous materials utilized during the constmction period is not significant, and therefore the impact to the public or the environment through the routine fransport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials is less that significant. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Existing condition: Please refer to the preceding existing condition response. Environmental Evaluation: No significant hazard involving the release of hazardous material into the environment would be anticipated since only regularly used cleaning materials will be utilized, only in normal instances. Finding: No impact - Please refer the response to Section Vll(b). No extraordinary risk of accidental explosion or the release of hazardous substances is anticipated with construction, development, and implementation or operation of the proposed project. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Existing condition: The subject project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Environmental Evaluation: The subject project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Finding: No impact - Due to the fact that the proposed project site is not located within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? Existing condition: The subject site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites (Federal database) compiled pursuant to Govemment Code Section 56962.5. 26 Rev. 07/03/02 Environmental Evaluation: The subject site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites (Federal database) compiled pursuant to Govemment Code Section 56962.5. In addition, it is not on the EPA database of current and potential Superfund sites currently or previously under investigation. Also, to the best of EPA's knowledge, it has been determined that no steps will be taken to list this site on the National Priorities List (NPL). It is not on any list of registered hazardous waste generators, or on a database of sites which freat, store, dispose of, or incinerate hazardous waste. Finding: No impact - The subject property is not included on any list of hazardous materials, and has no known previous use history that would involve the use or storage of hazardous materials. e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Existing condition: The subject site is located approximately 4 miles northwest of the McClellan- Palomar Airport runway. The site is not located in the Airport Influence Area of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport (CLUP), adopted April, 1994, prepared by the San Diego Association of Govemments (SANDAG). Environmental Evaluation: The site is not located within an airport land use plan. Finding: No impact - The project is not located within an airport land use plan and therefore will have no impact on the safety of people residing or working in the project area. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Existing condition: No private airstrip exists in the vicinity of the subject project. Environmental Evaluation: The project is not within the vicinity of a private airsfrip. Finding: No impact - The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. g) Impair implementation ofor physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and single family home site. Environmental Evaluation: Neither construction nor operation of the proposed hotel will significantly affect, block, or interfere with traffic on public streets, including any sfreets that would be used for an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No emergency response or evacuation plan directs evacuees through the project. Finding: No impact - No improvements are proposed by the project in any area which would physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 27 Rev. 07/03/02 Existing condition: The proposed project site currently consists of a motel, restaurant and single family home. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project site is surrounded on all four sides by development and as a result will not have any significant exposure to wildland fires. Finding: No impact - The subject property will not expose people or structures to wildland fires. The site is surrounded by development on all four sides. Vra. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Existing condition: The subject project is required by law to comply with all federal, state and local water quality regulations, including the Clean Water Act, Califomia Administrative Code Title 23, and specific basin plan objectives identified in the "Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin. The subject property is a fully developed motel, restaurant, and single family home that will be demolished and replaced with a three-story hotel. The site currently generates mnoff due to its paved surfaces. The Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin identifies specific objectives for the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit. These objectives include the requirement to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Best Management Practices (BMPs). Environmental Evaluation: After development, there will not be an increase in runoff from the study area. The site will be fiilly paved and have up to date water management practices in effect. Application, certification and compliance with an NPDES permit for implementation of the subject project will ensure that water quality exiting the subject site will be maintained to a level of acceptability. Finding: Less than significant impact - The proposed project could result in temporary degradation of water quality if it does not demonsfrate compliance with all federal, state, and local regulations for water quality. The project proponent shall adhere to applicable RWQCB regulations for confrol of sedimentation and erosion, including the installation of temporary detention basins or other means of stabilization or impoundment required by the State Water Resources Confrol Board. All exposed graded areas shall be freated with erosion confrol pursuant to City of Carlsbad erosion control standards, including hydroseed, berms, desiltation basins, jute matting, sandbags, bladed ditches, or other appropriate methods. Other Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be utilized. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water rechai^e such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Existing condition: Geotechnical test borings by Leighton Consulting, excavated for the subject project, indicated that groundwater was encountered at depths of 33 to 35 feet. Environmental Evaluation: Based on the estimated depth of the proposed development, Leighton Consulting does not expect groundwater to impact the development. Seepage conditions may be locally encountered after periods of heavy rainfall or irrigation. However, these conditions can be treated on individual basis if they occur. 28 Rev. 07/03/02 Finding: Less than significant impact - The proposed project is not expected to significantly deplete groundwater supplies, or significantly interfere with ground water recharge. c) Impacts to groundwater quality? Existing condition: Geotechnical test borings by Leighton Associates, Geologists, excavated for the subject project, indicated that groundwater was encountered at depths of 33 to 35 feet. Environmental Evaluation: Based on the estimated depth of the proposed development, Leighton Consulting does not expect groundwater to impact the development. Seepage conditions may be locally encountered after periods of heavy rainfall or irrigation. However, these conditions can be freated on individual basis if they occur. Finding: Less than significant impact - The proposed project is not expected to significantly deplete groimdwater supplies, or significantly interfere with ground water recharge. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern ofthe site or area, including through the alteration of the course ofa stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Existing condition: Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item Vlll(a) and (b). Environmental Evaluation: Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item Vlll(a) and (b). Finding: Less than significant impact - Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item Vlll(a) and (b). e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration ofthe course ofa stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off- site? Existing condition: Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item Vlll(a) and (b). Environmental Evaluation: Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item Vlll(a) and (b). Finding: Less than significant impact - Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item Vlll(a) and (b). f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Existing condition: Impervious surfaces associated with development of the project will incrementally increase mnoff. Environmental Evaluation: Existing storm water drainage systems on the project site have been designed, approved, and in some cases constructed to accommodate the runoff projected from the 29 Rev. 07/03/02 proposed project. No impact to existing storm drain systems and no additional sources of polluted runoff will result from implementation of the project. Finding: Less than significant impact - No additional pollution of surface waters is anticipated to result from the project. g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Existing condition: The drainage pattem dictates that the drainage water will west to the Pacific Ocean. These drainage facilities serve to maintain a decent water quality. Environmental Evaluation: Construction of the proposed project improvements is required by law to comply with all federal, state and local water quality regulations, including the Clean Water Act and associated NPDES regulations. As mentioned above, the project description includes a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Therefore temporary impacts associated with the construction operation will be mitigated. The project will not result in permanent or long term degradation of water quality as a result of the proposed pollution confrol program. Finding: Less than significant impact - Please refer to the preceding responses. h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? Existing condition: The proposed project improvements do not involve the placement of housing within the 100-year flood hazard area. Environmental Evaluation: No placement of housing is proposed within the flood hazard area. Finding: No impact - No housing is proposed as part of the project. i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? Existing condition: The subject project does not propose any stmctures within the 100-year flood hazard area. Environmental Evaluation: The project will not place any structures within the limits of the identified 100-year flood hazard areas. Thus no impediment to flood flows will result from implementation of the project. Finding: No impact - It is concluded that the proposed project will not impeded or redirect downsfream flood flows. j) Expose people or structures to a signiflcant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result ofthe failure of a levee or dam? Existing condition: Please refer to existing condition description Vlll(i) above. Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to environmental evaluation discussion Vlll(i) above. No levee or dam exists onsite or downstream of the project. 30 Rev. 07/03/02 Finding: No impact - It is concluded that the proposed project will not result in increased exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Existing condition: The proposed project site is located approximately 350 feet from the Pacific ocean approximately 50 feet above sea level in an area prone to seiche, tsunami or mudflow conditions as identified in the City's MEIR, Map 5.10.1-2. Environmental Evaluation: Based on the distance between the site and large, open bodies of water, and the elevation of the site with respect to sea level, the possibility of seiches, tsunamis, or mudflows is considered to be negligible. Finding: Less than signficant impact - The potential for damage to the project from seiche, tsunami or mudflow are considered less than significant due to the project's location and elevation. 1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. Existing condition: Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item Vlll(a) and (b). Environmental Evaluation: Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item Vlll(a) and (b). Finding: Less than significant impact - Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item Vlll(a) and (b). m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Existing condition: The project proposes urban development in an area that is currently developed. The project design does not propose to create or allow any pollutant discharges into receiving surface waters or other waters upsfream or downsfream of the subject project. Environmental Evaluation: The project proposes no increase in pollutant discharges. The project will be required to process and receive an NPDES permit. No significant levels of heavy metals, pathogens, pefroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances, or unconfrolled frash will be produced by the project. Finding: Less than significant impact - No significant increase in pollutant discharges will result from implementation of the proposed project. n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? Existing condition: Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item Vlll(a) and (b). Environmental Evaluation: Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item Vni(a) and (b). 31 Rev. 07/03/02 Finding: Less than significant impact - Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item Vlll(a) and (b). o) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? Existing condition: Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item Vlll(a) and (b). Environmental Evaluation: Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item Vlll(a) and (b). Finding: Less than significant impact,- Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item Vlll(a) and (b). p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? Existing condition: Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item Vlll(a) and (b). Environmental Evaluation: Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item Vlll(a) and (b). Finding: Less than significant impact - Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item Vlll(a) and (b). rx. LAND USE PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? Existing condition: The project site is currently developed with a motel, restaurant, parking lot and landscaping. It is located in an existing urban area. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project involves the removal of the current motel, restaurant and single family home and replacing them with a three-story hotel. As a result, no division of an existing community would result from development of the project. Finding: No impact - The project would not physically separate any contiguous community areas since a similar use currently occupies the site. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Existing condition: The City of Carlsbad General Plan identifies the subject site as Residential High Density (RH) land use. Zoning is designated Residential (R-3). The project proposes a General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan designation to Village (V) and a Zone Change to change the Zoning to Commercial Tourist (C-T). These two land uses will allow the construction of the new three- story hotel. Additionally, a Local Coastal Program Amendment is proposed to allow the new usage. 32 Rev. 07/03/02 Environmental Evaluation: Following approval of the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Local Coastal Program Amendment, the proposed project will be consistent with all applicable land use plans. No incompatibility will exist between the proposed project and the new land use regulations on the property. Finding: No impact - Following approval of the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Local Coastal Program Amendment, the project will not be in conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the project. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Existing condition: The City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities (HMP) is intended to lead to citywide permits and authorization for the incidental take of sensitive plant and animal species in conjunction with private developments, public projects and other activities which are consistent with the Plan. Approval of the HMP by the USFWS and the Coastal Commission is pending. The open space preserve system and program established by the HMP is intended to replace that contained within the Open Space Element of the General Plan. As part of the planning process for the HMP, a citywide interconnected open space preserve system was identified. The subject site is currently fully developed and part of an existing urban area that is identified for urban uses in the HMP. Environmental Evaluation: The subject site is fully developed and part of an existing urban area that is identified for urban uses in the HMP. Therefore the proposed project is not in conflict with the HMP. Finding: No impact - The subject project site is consistent with the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad. No other habitat conservation plans specific to this site effect the property X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) 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? Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and single family home site. No known or expected mineral deposits of future value to the region and the residents of the state are located in the immediate vicinity of the subject project. Environmental Evaluation: The subject site has been already fully developed. No known mineral resources were identified on the site at the time of original construction. Finding: No impact - No known mineral resource of regional or statewide value are known that would be affected through implementation of the project. The site is not located in an area of mineral resources as identified in MEIR 93-01, map 5.13-1. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Existing condition: Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item X(a) and (b). 33 Rev. 07/03/02 Environmental Evaluation: Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item X(a) and (b). Finding: No impact - Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item X(a) and (b). XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and single family home site. Environmental Evaluation: In terms of noise generation, the construction of the proposed project is anticipated to create the greatest amount of noise, inasmuch as the permanent use will not create significant noise. The City of Carlsbad Municipal Code (Chapter 8.48) prohibits constmction activity that would create disturbing, excessive, or offensive noise after sunset of any day, and before 7 A.M. Monday through Friday, and before 8 A.M. on Saturday, and all day Sunday and specified holidays. The Noise Ordinance does not set a defined noise level standard for constmction activities, but simply limits the hours of construction. The significance of construction noise produced during project construction is typically assessed in accordance with the County of San Diego Noise Ordinance. San Diego County Noise Ordinance Section 36.410 stipulates that construction noise shall not exceed 75 dB for more than 8 hours during any 24-hour period. Finding: No impact - Both construction noise levels and permanent noise levels generated by the project are anticipated to comply with City of Carlsbad Noise Policy standards. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundboume vibration or groundboume noise levels? Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and single family home site and does not generate ground vibrations as part of regular business. Environmental Evaluation: Although some ground vibration may occur during demolition and construction ofthe new project, the proposed hotel is not anticipated to expose persons to or generation of excessive groundboume vibration or noise levels. Finding: No impact - The project will not produce any significant groundboume vibration. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Existing condition: Please refer to response XI(a). Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to response XI(a). Finding: No impact - The proposed project will not result in an increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels generated by Carlsbad Boulevard without the project. 34 Rev. 07/03/02 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Existing condition: Please refer to response XI(a). Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to response XI(a). Finding: No impact - The proposed project will not result in an increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Existing condition: The subject site is located approximately 4 miles from the McClellan-Palomar Airport. Environmental Evaluation: The subject site is not located within 2 miles of a public airport. Finding: No impact - The subject site will not expose people to excessive noise due to the fact that it is not located within 2 mUes of a public airport. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Existing condition: No private airstrip exists in the vicinity of the subject project. Environmental Evaluation: The project is not within the vicinity of a private airsfrip Finding: No impact - The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) ? Existing condition: The subject project is an existing commercial/motel use located in an already developed urban area. Implementation of the project would result in a minor increase in the intensity of usage of the site, but not in population. The subject site has been identified as a location for urban development. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project involves the removal of an existing motel and associated uses and replacing them with a three story hotel. No increase in population is anticipated as a resuh of the service industry jobs related to the 60,251 square feet of commercial/hotel development. The proposed project will be consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning. As a result, no inducement for substantial growth, either directly or indirectly will occur through implementation of the subject project. 35 Rev. 07/03/02 Finding: No impact - The project will not induce substantial growth, nor will it induce population grovv1:h by providing infrastructure to support unplanned growth. The property will be designated for urban development consistent with the City's General Plan. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and single family home site. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project wiU displace one single family dwelling unit. Finding: Less than significant impact - One single family dwelling unit will be demolished as part of the construction of the proposed Hampton Inn Suites. A less than significant impact will occur as a result of the loss of one housing unit. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and single family home site. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project will displace one single family dwelling unit Finding: Less than significant impact - One single family dwelling unit will be displaced by the implementation of this project. A substantial number of people will not be displaced and replacement housing will not be necessary. Xni. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered govemment facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any ofthe public services: i. Fire protection? Existing condition: The subject site is located within the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) area. City of Carlsbad Fire Station No. I (1275 Carlsbad Village Drive) serves the subject site. Environmental Evaluation: The subject site is considered by the Carlsbad Fire Department to be within an effective fire response time of Ffre Station No. 1. The subject project will not measurably affect this anticipated current fire response times. Finding: No impact - The proposed project is within an area anticipated by the Fire Department for urban development, and planned within thefr standard response time. The project will comply with the standards identified in the Zone I LFMP, and therefore will not have any measurable affect on the fire service demands or needs of the area. ii. Police protection? 36 Rev. 07/03/02 Existing condition: The Carlsbad Police Department (CPD), located on 2560 Orion Way, services the entire city of Carlsbad. Although the City has not established an official service standard for the department, CPD does maintain a general in-house guideline that is followed in order to assure adequate police service to the community. This guideline suggests a six-minute maximum response time anywhere within the city limits. In order to achieve this level of emergency service and to sufficiently pafrol the city, the CPD currently operates seven beats, each pafrolled at any given time by one ortwo officers. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project does not represent an increase in demand on CPD resources. However, for any increased demand, the department is sufficiently staffed to absorb demand and continue to meet their own general service guideline of maintaining a six-minute emergency respaise time. Finding: No impact - The proposed project will not result in an increase in demand on police protection resources, and the police department's service guideline will continue to be met. iii. Schools Existing condition: The proposed project is non-residential, and will not cause an increase in demand for schools. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project is non-residential, and will have no impact on school student generation. Finding: No impact - The project will not generate any need for school services and, therefore, will have no impact on schools serving the area. iv. Parks? Existing condition: The proposed project is non residential and will not create an increase in demand for parks. The existing Zone 1 parks, including Hosp Grove Park fiilfill Zone I's park requirement adequately. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project is non-residential and will not create an increase in demand for parks. Finding: No impact - The proposed project is non residential and will not create an increase in demand for parks. The existing Zone 1 parks, including Hosp Grove Park fulfill Zone 1 's park requirement adequately. v. Other public facilities? Existing condition: Sewer: The Carlsbad Municipal Water District provides sewer service to the subject site. Sewage from the site is processed at the Encina Wastewater Treatment Facility, via a sewer trunk line located in the surrounding developed sfreets and lateral lines that currently serve the property. The Zone 1 LFMP stipulates that sewer trunk line capacity must meet demand as determined by appropriate sewer districts and must be provided concurrent with development. Water: The Carlsbad Municipal Water District provides water service to the subject site. Water is provided via an existing water line and lateral currently connected to the project. The Zone 1 LFMP stipulates that water line capacity must meet demand as determined by appropriate water disfrict and must 37 Rev. 07/03/02 be provided concurrent with development. Also, that a minimum ten day average storage capacity must be provided prior to any development. Environmental Evaluation: Sewer: The subject project is not anticipated to exceed sewer demand planned by the Carlsbad Municipal Water Disfrict for the subject site. Water: The subject project is not anticipated to exceed water demand planned by the Municipal Water Disfrict for the subject site. Finding: No impact - The proposed project will generate sewer and water usage demands anticipated at the time of initial construction of the existing building. No unanticipated demands will occur as a result of the project. XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Existing condition: The proposed project is non-residential and will not create an increase in demand for parks. The existing Zone I parks, including Hosp Grove Park fulfill Zone I's park requirement adequately. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project is non-residential and will not create an increase in demand for parks. The existing Zone 1 parks, including Hosp Grove Park fulfill Zone 1 's park requirement adequately. Finding: No impact - The proposed project will not result in an increase in demand beyond that already accommodated, on recreational facilities of any kind. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Existing condition: The proposed project does include recreational facilities. A pool, spa, and indoor exercise area will be constmcted for the use of the hotels patrons. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed recreational facilities will not have an adverse physical effect on the envfronment. Finding: No impact - The proposed recreational facilities will not result in any adverse physical effect on the envfronment XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity ofthe street system? Existing condhion: The subject project is located in the northeast quadrant of the city of Carlsbad, at the northeast comer of the intersection of Carlsbad Boulevard and Oak Avenue. 316 ADT are currently generated by the existing motel/restaurant use. 38 Rev. 07/03/02 Environmental Evaluation: An analysis of traffic impacts projected of the proposed project has been prepared, Traffic Impact Analysis for Carlsbad Hampton Inn, Linscott, Law, and Greenspan, Febmary 17, 2005) which analyzes the fraffic generation from the proposed project. Proposed Proiect: Use ADT AM Peak AM Peak PM Peak PMPeak Hour - In Hour - Out Hour - In Hour - Out 196 6 9 11 7 120 i 0 7 3 707 23 34 38 26 391 16 25 20 16 Existing Uses -28 room motel @ 7 ADT/room -1.200 sq.ft. restaurant @ 100 ADT/sf.ft Proposed Uses -101 room hotel @, 7 ADT/room Total Finding: Less than significant impact - The proposed project is projected to generate 707 ADT. Factoring in the loss of 316 ADT with the removal of the existing motel/restaurant, the new project will generate 391 additional ADT. This increase is not considered an increase so substantial that it will impact the existing roadway system in the vicinity of the site. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Existing condition: All street segments and intersections in the immediate vicinity of the subject project presently operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS "D" or better during the AM and PM peak hour periods). Some intersections and roadway segments within the city operate at unacceptable levels of service, including freeway links and the Palomar Airport Road/El Camino Real intersection. The additional traffic generated by the project will cumulatively add to this traffic congestion. The proposed project will generate approximately 707 ADT. Environmental Evaluation: The increase of 707 ADT onto the adjacent street system will cumulatively contribute to impacted road segments or intersections exceeding the level of service standard established by SANDAG or by the City of Carlsbad. The proposed project will not significantiy impact fraffic flow in the area of the project. Finding: Potentially significant impact - The proposed project will add cumulatively to existing significant impacted fraffic levels of service within the city. c) Result in a change in air trafflc pattems, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks? Existing condition: The proposed project will have no impact on air fraffic demand or afr traffic pattems. Environmental Evaluation: The project will not have an impact on air traffic demand or pattems. Finding: No impact - The project will not generate or require air fraffic and will not physically interfere with air traffic pattems. 39 Rev. 07/03/02 d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? Existing condition: The project will be designed in accordance with City standards for commerciaVhotel serving projects. Environmental Evaluation: The project will be designed in accordance with City standards for commercial/hotel serving projects. This includes adequate fire access and vehicular circulation, and roadway widths, parking configuration, and length and widths of driveways. These standards have been adopted and have been demonsfrated through long-term use to decrease hazards or incompatible uses. Finding: No impact - The project will not substantially increase hazards due to design features or incompatible uses. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Existing condition: The Carlsbad Fire Department is responsible for review of emergency access plans for development projects. The project site plan will be assessed for emergency access by the Fire Department prior to approval. Environmental Evaluation: The City wUl review the details of the proposed design of the Carlsbad Airport Hotels to ensure compliance with emergency access plans. Finding: No impact - The proposed project will be required to comply with emergency access plans, and the project will not affect any public or private access to other property. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? Existing condition: The proposed project is required to comply with Chapter 21.44 (Parking) of the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance. Environmental Evaluation: The City of Carlsbad will review the final site plan to ensure its compliance with the Parking Ordinance, and will not be approved if sufficient parking is not being provided. Therefore it can be concluded that adequate parking capacity will be provided for the project. Finding: No impact - Sufficient spaces will be provided onsite. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting altemative transportation (e.g., bus tumouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? Existing condition: The subject site is not identified on any regional or community plans relative to alternative transportation. Environmental Evaluation: The project is located on a site that is not considered integral to any alternative transportation policies. Thus the project will not conflict with any such policies. Finding: No impact - As a result of the fact that regional and local policies do not include any specific reference to the site in terms of altemative fransportation programs, facilities, it is concluded that the project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting altemative transportation. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: 40 Rev. 07/03/02 a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Existing condition: The proposed project will create a small increase in wastewater generated by the existing motel^'restaurant use. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project will create a small increase in wastewater. Finding: Less than significant impact - The project would have a less than significant impact on wastewater freatment. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction ofwhich would cause significant environmental effects? Existing condition: Please refer to the previous response. The project will not resufr in a significant increase in quantity of wastewater generation already handled by the Encina Wastewater Treatment Plant. Environmental Evaluation: The project will not result in a significant increase in quantity of wastewater generation already handled by the Encina Wastewater Treatment Plant. Finding: No impact - No additional water or wastewater treatment facilities will be required due to the construction of the proposed project. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction ofwhich could cause signiflcant environmental effects? Existing condition: The proposed project site is an existing commercial/motel use. Storm water drainage facilities were constructed at the time of initial development and are functioning and in place currently. Environmental Evaluation: Minimal improvements will be made to the drainage facilities. Both upsfream and downstream facilities contain adequate capacity and functionality to accept the storm water demands resulting when the project is complete. Finding: Less than significant impact - No significant environmental effects will result from the implementation of new drainage facilities during constmction of the proposed hotel d) Have sufflcient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and single family home site. Water supply facilities were consfructed at the time of initial development are functioning and in place currently. Environmental Evaluation: Water service will be supplied by the Carlsbad Municipal Water Disfrict. The site is identified in the City's MEIR 93-01 for urban uses. Proposed water usage on the site will be for landscape irrigation and the regular water usage associated with a hotel. The project will have no significant impact on water supplies. 41 Rev. 07/03/02 Finding: Less than significant impact - The project will not result in a significant impact to water supplies. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Existing condition: Please refer to response XVI(a). Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to response XVI(a). Finding: Less than significant impact - No significant increase in wastewater treatment will result from the project. f) Be served by a landfill with sufflcient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed vrith the Surf Motel, a restaurant and single family home site. Environmental Evaluation: The project site has been planned as an urban community. No unanticipated significant increase in solid waste disposal is anticipated to result from implementation of the project. The waste provider will be Waste Management Services, and the City's engineering staff will have Waste Management Services review the site plan for service adequacy as part of the approval process. Finding: No impact - No measurable significant increase in impact on solid waste creation is expected to result from the subject project. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Existing condition: See previous response. The subject project is not anticipated to create any significant increase in the amount of solid waste. The project is required to comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Environmental Evaluation: The project will create no significant impact on solid waste collection and disposal, and will comply with federal, state and local statutes. Finding: No impact - The project will create no significant impact on solid waste collection and disposal, and will comply with federal, state and local statutes. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality ofthe environment, substantially reduce the habitat ofa fish or wildlife species, cause a flsh 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 ofCalifornia history or prehistory? Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and single family home site. The site drains directly into the Pacific Ocean. The project must also obtain a 42 Rev. 07/03/02 NPDES permit prior to construction. The permit will require that the project develop and implement specific erosion confrol and storm water pollution prevention plans to protect water quality. Environmental Evaluation: After development, there will be an increase in runoff from the study area. A portion of the increase in runoff will be due to the use of imported water into the study area for landscaping, etc. The remaining water increase will be due to the increased impervious area within the project site. The drainage pattem dictates that this drainage water will flow west to the Pacific Ocean. Application, certification and compliance with an NPDES permit for implementation of the subject project will ensure that water quality entering the Pacific Ocean will be maintained to a level of acceptability. Finding: Less than significant impact - Please refer to the responses to Sections IV and V. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects ofa 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?) Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and single family home site. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project will contribute incrementally to air pollution and traffic congestion in the vicinity. Finding: Less than significant impact - It is concluded that the cumulative impacts to air quality and fraffic will be less than significant. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the Surf Motel, a restaurant and single family home site. Environmental Evaluation: The project does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indfrectly. Finding: Less than significant impact - Potential adverse effects on the human population have been evaluated in preceding sections of this checklist. No unmitigable adverse environmental effects atfributable to the project have been identified. XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were 43 Rev. 07/03/02 within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Departtnent located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, Califomia, 92008. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01), City ofCarlsbad Planning Department (March 1994). 2. Comprehensive Land Use Plan McClellan-Palomar Airport. San Diego Association of Govemments, (April, 1994) 4. Current Rules and Regulations. County of San Diego Air Pollution Confrol District (November, 2002). 5. San Diego Countv Important Farmland. Califomia Department of Conservation (September, 2002). 6. Unifomi Building Code - Volume I (1997); Table 18-l-B. 7. Special Publication 42. Califomia Geological Survey; State Geologist Division of Mines and Geology (May 1996). 8. Traffic Impact Analvsis. Carlsbad Hampton Inn. Linscott Law and Greenspan., (December 1,2004). 9. Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan. City of Carlsbad Planning Department, (July 1987). 10. Zoning Ordinance. City of Carlsbad 11. Grading Ordinance. City of Carlsbad 12. General Plan. City of Carlsbad ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DISCUSSION: 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 elecfric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides 44 Rev. 07/03/02 of nifrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major confributors 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 altemative modes of fransportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management sfrategies 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. TRANSPORTATION/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 confrol. 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 measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop altemative modes of transportation such as frails, 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 sfreets 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 45 Rev. 07/03/02 covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. A MEIR may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the filing of an application for a later project. The City is currently reviewing the 1994 MEIR to determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects. Although the MEIR was certified more than five years ago, the City's preliminary review of its adequacy finds that no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was certified. The only potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure at Palomar Airport Rd. and El Camino Real has been mitigated to below a level of significance with new roadway improvements. Additionally, there is no new available information, which was not knovra and could not have been known at the time the MEIR was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to review later projects. 46 Rev. 07/03/02 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES To mfrigate potentially significant project impacts, the following mitigation measures shall be applied to the development of the proposed project: 47 Rev. 07/03/02 ^itv of cSrIsbad Planning Departinent HAZARDOUS WASTE AND SUBSTANCES STATEMENT Consultation Of Lists of Sites Related To Hazardous Wastes (Certification of Comphance with Govemment Code Section 65962.5) Pursuant to State of CaHfomia Government Code Section 65962.5,1 have consulted the Hazardous Wastes and Substances Sites List compiled by the Califomia Environmental Protection Agenc\' and hereby certify that (check one): 3 The development project and any altematives proposed in this application are not contained on the Usts compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the State Govemment Code. I I The development project and any altematives proposed in this application are contained on the lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the State Govemment Code. APPLICANT Name: ^KN Hotels Address: 540 Golden Circle Dr. #214 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Name: PROPERTY OVVONIER DKN Hotels/Dahya Patel Address: 540 Golden Circle Dr. #214 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Phone Number: (714) 480-0661 Phone Number: (714) 480-0661 Address of Site: ^136 Carlsbad Blvd & 3155 Lincoln St Local Agency (City and Countv): City of Carisbad Assessor's book, page, and parcel number: 203-250 08, 26 Specify list(s): Subject not on lists Regulatory Identification Number: N/A Date of List: Search performed on February 9, 2005 ApplTcanVSignfeture/Date Property Owner Signature/Date Ita ' I Admin/Coimier/HazWasie 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 @ The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese List) is a planning document used by the State, local agencies and developers to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. Government Code section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency to develop at least annually an updated Cortese List. Below is a list of agencies that maintain information regarding .Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites. Department of Toxic Substances Control* www.dtsc.ca.aov/database/calsites Calsites Hotline (916) 323-3400 State Water Resources Control Board www.swrcb.ca.qov/cwphome/lustis County of San Diego Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) Mike Dorsey Chief, Hazardous Materials Division Department of Environmental Health Services Hazardous Materials Management Division Mailing address: P.O. Box 129261 San Diego, CA 92112-9261 (619) 338-2395 Call Duty Specialist for General Questions at (619) 338-2231 fax: (619) 338-2315 www.co.san-dieqo.ca.us Integrated Waste Management Board www.ciwmb.ca.qov 916-255-4021 Environmental Protection Agency National Priorities Sites ("Superfund" or "CERCLIS") www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/cursites (800)424-9346 National Priorities List Sites in the United States www.epa.qov/superfund/sites/npl/npl.htm 5/19/03 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - INITIAL STUDY CASE NO: GPA 05-05/ZC 05-02/LCPA 05-02/RP 05-03/ SDP 05-04/ CDP 05-14 DATE: December 21. 2006 BACKGROUND 1. CASENAME: DKN-Marriott 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv ofCarisbad 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: CliffJones (760) 434-2813. Van Lvnch (760) 602-4613 4. PROJECT LOCATION: The proiect is located at 3136 Carisbad Boulevard, on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard between Pine Avenue and Oak Avenue. Carlsbad. San Diego Countv. 203-250-08.26 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: DKN Hotels. 540 Golden Circle Drive #214. Santa Ana. CA 92705 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Village (V). and Residential High (RH) that is proposed to change to Travel/Recreation Commercial (TR). 7. ZONING: Village Redevelopment (V-R). and Residential (R-3) that is proposed to change to Commercial Tourist (C-T). 8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): Califomia Coastal Commission 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The proposed project involves a General Plan Amendment. Zone Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment. Maior Redevelopment Permit. Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit for the demolition of an existing 28 room hotel. 1125 square foot Restaurant and a single familv residence to allow for the construction of a three story 104 room hotel with underground parking. The General Plan Amendment is to change the Land Use designation from Residential High densitv (RH) to Travel/Recreation Commercial (TR) on the easterly portion of the proiect. The proiect site consists of two parcels (203-250-08 & 203-250-26) totaling .84 acres. The site is in an urbanized area and is located on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard between Pine Avenue and Oak Avenue. The proiect proposes to construct a Marriott - Spring Hill Suites hotel on the site. The hotel will contain 104 rooms and suites totaling 62.354 square feet. 125 underground parking spaces are proposed, and automobile access will take access via Carlsbad Boulevard. There will be "loading only" access via Lincoln Street for trash service. The two parcels are currently occupied by the Surf Motel. The Armenian Cafe, and a single family dwelling. These structures will be demolished, removed and replaced with the proposed Marriott. The site is located within Local Facilides Management Plan (LFMP) Zone 1 in the northwest quadrant of the Citv of Carlsbad and in the Mello I and Redevelopment Area segments of the Local Coastal Program. Surrounding properties include a 7-11 convenience store to the north, mulri-family Rev. 02/22/06 dwellings to the south, multi-familv units to the east and a Carlsbad Inn Beach Resort hotel to the west. Rev. 02/22/06 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. I I Aesthetics I I Agricultural Resources I I Air Quality I I Biological Resources I I Cultural Resources I I Geology/Soils Q Noise • Hazards/Hazardous Materials • Population and Housing I I Hydrology/Water Quality Q Public Services I I Land Use and Planning I I Mineral Resources I I Mandatory Findings of Significance I I Recreation I I Transportation/Circulation I I Udlides & Service Systems Rev. 02/22/06 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) I find that the proposed project COLJLD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I I 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 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I I I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I I I find that the proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the enviromnent, but at least one potentially significant impact 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 Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I I 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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. Planner Signature Date Planning Director's Signature Date Rev. 02/22/06 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 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 infonnation 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 Impacf 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 significantly adverse, 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 significantly adverse. • Based on an "EIA-Initial Study", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but all potentially significant adverse 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. • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant adverse 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 adverse effect on the environment. • If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse 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. Rev. 02/22/06 • An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse 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 adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the EIA-Initial Study 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 after each related set of questions. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant. Rev. 02/22/06 AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact • • • • • • m • • • X • • • X a) Less Than Significant Impact. Existing Condition: The subject site is currendy developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a single family home. The site is visible fi-om Carlsbad Boulevard to the west. Carlsbad Boulevard is considered a Community Theme Corridor in the City of Carlsbad General Plan, and the site is currently landscaped according to the standards of the Carisbad Scenic Corridor Guidelines Manual. Environmental Evaluation: The subject project will be visible to drivers and pedestrians on Carlsbad Boulevard. Landscaping along Carlsbad Boulevard will help soften and screen the project from motorists. The proposed project is one three story building, which will have a maximum height of 42.83 feet. This height is consistent with the development standards for the area. Finding: Less than significant impact - The proposed project will replace the existing 28 room Surf Motel, restaurant and a single family residential uses. The new structure will not significantly impact the viewshed from either the surrounding uses or fi-om Carlsbad Boulevard. Temporary aesthetic impacts associated with construction of the project will not be significant. Therefore, the project will not have a significant impact on any scenic vista. b) No Impact. Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a single family home. No historic buildings, are located in or adjacent to the site. The site is not located within the viewshed of a State scenic highway or any State highway that is designated by CalTrans as eligible for listing as a scenic highway. Enyironmental Evaluation: Since no trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings, and no State scenic highways are in the vicinity of the proposed project, no significant impact to such resources is anticipated. Finding: No impact - The site is not within the viewshed of a state scenic highway or any state highway that is designated by CalTrans as eligible for listing. Please also refer to tlie preceding response. Rev. 02/22/06 c) No Impact. Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a single family home. Environmental Evaluation: Permanent visual impacts of the proposed project will involve the construction of a three-story hotel. Temporary impacts associated with construction will be short-term and not significant. A hotel currently occupies the site. No impacts to open spaces will be caused by the proposed project. Therefore, it is concluded that the project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Finding: No impact - Please also refer to response 1(a), above. d) No Impact. Existing condition: The subject area presently contains exterior building mounted and parking area lights for the 28 room Surf Motel. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project presently contains exterior building mounted and parking area lights. The proposal will not significantly change the lighting characteristics of the existing building. The project will submit a lighting plan to the Planning Department as part of the approval process. Finding: No impact - It is concluded that the proposed project will not result in a new source of significant light and glare and will not significantly affect day or nighttime views in the area. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the Califomia Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the Califomia Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Califomia Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? Potentially Significant Impact • • Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated • • • • Less Than Significant Impact • • No Impact • m Rev. 02/22/06 a) No Impact. Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed. There is no farmland on the site. Enyironmental Evaluation: The proposed project will not impact farmland. Finding: No impact - The project site is currently developed and no farmland exists. b) No Impact. Existing condition: See IIa above. Enyironmental Evaluation: See IIa above. Finding: No impact - See IIa above. c) No Impact. Existing condition: See IIa above. Environmental Evaluation: See IIa above. Finding: No impact - See IIa above. III. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstmct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Potentially Significant Impact • • • • Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact • • • • • m m • • • s • • m • m Rev. 02/22/06 No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a state non-attainment area for ozone (O3) and for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PMio). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air QuaUty Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of Govemments (SANDAG). A Plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state- mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other Califomia non-attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the Califomia State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9* through 10* in 1994, and was forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996. The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city's and the County's general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact. Section 15125(B) of the State of Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The Califomia Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following: • Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area? • Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan? The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being implemented. The project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is at Camp Pendleton. Data available for this monitoring site from 2000 through December 2004, indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (a total of 10 days during the 5-year period). No other violations of any air quality standards have been recorded during the 5-year time period. The project would involve minimal short-term emissions associated with grading and constmction. Such emissions would be minimized through standard constmction measures such as the use of properly tuned equipment and watering the site for dust control. Long-term emissions associated with travel to and from the project will be minimal. Although air pollutant emissions would be associated with the project, they would neither result in the violation of any air quality standard (comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality readings), nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quaUty violation. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The air basin is currently in a state non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the proposed project would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the proposed project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a)(4), the proposed project's contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. 10 Rev. 02/22/06 d) No impact. As noted above, the proposed project would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or concentrations. In addition, there are no sensitive receptors (e.g., schools or hospitals) located in the vicinity of the project. No impact is assessed. e) No Impact. The constmction of the proposed project could generate fumes from the operation of constmction equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure would be short-term or transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not considered substantial. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directiy or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by Califomia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetiand habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by Califomia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and WildUfe Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vemal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological intermption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Potentially Significant Impact • • • Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact • • 13 • • • • • S • • • E • • • S • m • m u Rev, 02/22/06 a) No Impact. Existing condifion: The subject site is currendy developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a single family home. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project will replace an existing motel use. The site is fully developed and there are no special status, candidate or sensitive biological species on site. Finding: No Impact - No direct impacts to sensitive vegetation protected by CDFG and/or USFWS will occur through implementafion of the subject project. b) No Impact. Exisfing condifion: Please refer to explanation of existing condition Section IV(a). No impacts are anticipated. Environmental Evaluation: No permanent impacts to wetlands vegetation would result fi-om implementation of the project. Finding: No Impact - No direct impacts to sensitive vegetation protected by CDFG and/or USFWS will occur through implementation of the subject project. c) No Impact. Exisfing condition: The subject site is currendy developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a single family home. No direct filling, hydrological interruption or other impacts to "waters of the U.S." will take place due to the implementation of the subject project. Environmental Evaluation: No impact to wetlands or "waters" is anticipated fi-om the project. Finding: No impact - The project site does not contain any federally protected wedands or "waters" as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. d) No Impact. Exisfing condifion: Please refer to exisfing condition response IV(a). Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to exisfing condifion response IV(a). Finding: No impact - The subject property is an already developed with commercial and residential buildings in an urbanized area. e) No Impact. Exisfing condition: The City of Carisbad has no adopted tree preservation policy or ordinance which would affect the subject project. In addition, the subject property is an already developed with commercial and residential buildings in an urbanized area. Environmental Evaluation: The subject project will not impact trees or other biological resources protected by policy or ordinance. Finding: No impact - No tree preservation impacts will result fi-om implementation ofthe project. 12 Rev. 02/22/06 0 No Impact. Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a single family home. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed use is located in an urban area and is consistent with the Habitat Management Plan which identifies that area as urbanized. Finding: No impact - The proposed project is consistent with the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique pale ontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact • • • H • • • H d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? • • • K a)-d) No Impact. Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a single family home. Environmental Evaluation: No impacts to historical, archeological, or geological resources will result fi-om implementation of the proposed project. Finding: No impact - The subject site is currently developed and demolition will not result in impacts to historical resources. No historical resources have been identified on the site or within the vicinity of the project; and therefore no impacts to historical, archeological, or geological resources will result from construction of the project. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would tiie project: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 13 Rev. 02/22/06 a) Expose people or stmctures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as | | [ | ^ | [ delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? ^ |^ iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including |^ ^ | [ Uquefaction? iv. Landslides? • • • b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of |^ | | topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, |^ ^ | [ or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 I I I I I I - 1-B ofthe Uniform Building Code (1997), creating —' — —I substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the |^ |^ |^ ^ use of septic tanks or altemative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 14 Rev. 02/22/06 a)i. Less Than Significant Impact. Existing condition: The project area is situated in the westem portion of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province of southem Califomia. This geomorphic province encompasses an area that extends 125 miles from the Transverse Ranges and the Los Angeles Basin, south to the Mexican border, and beyond another 775 miles to the southem tip of Baja Califomia. The westemmost portion of the province in San Diego County, in which the site is located, generally consists of Upper Cretaceous, Tertiary and Quatemary age sedimentary rocks. The most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the north San Diego County area, indicates that the project is considered to be in a seismically active area, as is most of southem Califomia. This map however, indicates that the subject site is not underlain by known active faults, nor is there evidence of ground displacement in the area during the last 11,000 years. The Newport-Inglewood fault zone is the closest known fault, which is the onshore portion of an extensive fault zone that includes the Offshore Zone of Deformation and the Rose Canyon fault to the north of the subject site. This fault zone, located approximately four miles westerly of the subject site, is made of predominately right-lateral strike-slip faults that extend south-southeast through the San Diego metropolitan area. The zone extends offshore at La Jolla, and continues north-northwest generally parallel to the coastline. Portions of the Rose Canyon fault zone in the San Diego area have been recognized by the State Geologist to be considered active. Additionally, the Julian and Temecula segments of the Elsinore fault zone, about 23 miles to the northeast of the subject site are also referenced in the Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Environmental Evaluation: No active faults have been mapped across the project site. The closest fault is located approximately four miles westerly of the site. The Elsinore fault zone is located approximately 25 miles east of the site, and the Coronado Bank fault is located approximately 20 miles west of the site. The potential for mpture resulting from earthquake is considered to be low. The subject site is not within a fault-mpture hazard zone as indexed in the Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Because of the lack of known active faults on the site, the potential for surface mpture at the site is considered low. The seismic hazard most likely to impact the site is ground shaking resulting fi-om an earthquake on one of the active regional faults discussed above. Finding: Less than significant impact - The project site is not within a fault-mpture hazard zone as determined in the geotechnical report (Addendum No. 1, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, DKN Hotels, Leighton Consulting, Inc, November 23,2005), and as indexed in the Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42; therefore the project would not expose people or stmctures to potential substantial adverse effects. 15 Rev. 02/22/06 a)ii. Less Than Signiflcant Impact. Existing condition: Southem Califomia is recognized as a seismically-active area. As indicated in the response to Item VI(a)(i), the Newport-Inglewood fault zone is the closest known fault, located approximately four miles westerly of the subject site. This fault is made of predominately right-lateral strike-slip faults that extend south-southeast through the San Diego metropolitan area. The second- closest active area of potential ground motion is the Julian and Temecula segments of the Elsinore fault zone, located 23 miles to the northeast of the subject site. No other known active faults are located within the vicinity of the project. The most significant seismic event likely to affect the proposed facilities would be a maximum moment magnitude 7.1 earthquake along the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, which could produce an estimated horizontal peak ground acceleration of .37g at the site. Environmental Evaluation: The project site will likely be subject to ground shaking in response to either a local moderate or more distant large-magnitude earthquake. Seismic risk at the site is comparable to the risk for the San Diego area in general. The closest source to the site for ground motion, and the source that would produce the greatest ground acceleration at the site, is the Newport-Inglewood fault zone, about four miles west, and potentially the Julian and Temecula segments of the Elsinore fault zone, about 23 miles to the northeast of the project site. Finding: Less than significant impact -Earthquake faults exist within Southem Califomia, including three fault zones within 23 miles of the site. Historical records have indicated however, that the risk of strong seismic ground shaking of the project site is minimal, and thus is considered a less than significant impact. The building will be constmcted following the Uniform Building Code standards that are in effect at the time of constmction to minimize the effects of strong seismic ground shaking during a seismic event. a)iii. Less Than Significant Impact. Exisfing condition: Liquefaction of soils with minimal cohesion can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Research indicates that loose granular soils and silts that are saturated by a relatively shallow groundwater table are most susceptible to liquefaction. The site is currently fully developed with an existing motel, restaurant, and a single family home. Environmental Evaluation: The site is currently developed fully and the proposed project will replace the existing building. The new building will be constmcted following the Uniform Building Code standards in effect at the time of constmction to minimize the effects of liquefaction during a seismic event. Leighton Consulting (Addendum No. 1, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, DKN Hotels, Leighton Consulfing, Inc, November 23, 2005) indicates that the on-site soils are not considered liquefiable due to their relatively dense condition and absence of a shallow ground water condition. Finding: Less than significant impact - The potential for liquefaction or seismically induced setdement in the vicinity of the proposed improvements is considered to be very low due to the nature of the underlying soil formation and the lack of groundwater near the surface. a)iv. No Impact. Existing condition: No landslides have been identified as having the potential to damage or affect the proposed project facilities. Environmental Evaluation: No landslides are anticipated to affect the proposed project development improvements. Finding: No impact - No landslides are anticipated to affect the proposed project. 16 Rev. 02/22/06 b) Less Than Significant Impact. Existing condition: The subject site is currentiy developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a single family home site. Environmental Evaluation: The existing motel, restaurant, and home will be replaced by a new three-story hotel. During the finish grading, the exposure of soils would lead to an increased chance for the erosion of soils fi-om the site. Such grading will follow best management practices for the control of erosion, such as straw bale or sandbag barriers, silt fences, slope roughening, and outlet protection in exposed areas. Finished grades will be promptly hydroseeded or otherwise protected as required per the adopted City Grading Ordinance. If necessary, temporary slope cover such as jute matting or mulch will be applied to newly graded slopes to reduce the impact to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil to a level of less than significant. Finding: Less than significant impact - It is concluded that impacts to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil will be less than significant, because the project is required to comply with the erosion control requirements of the City of Carlsbad grading ordinance. c) Less Than Significant Impact. Exisfing condition: Please refer to existing condition VI(a)(i, ii, and iii). Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to evaluation VI(a)(i, ii, and iii). Finding: Less than significant impact - Please refer to response VI(a)(i, ii, and iii). d) No Impact. Existing condition: Preliminary geotechnical evaluation of the subject site indicates that the site is underlain by Quatemary-aged Terrace Deposits which overlies the Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation. The (^atemary-aged Terrace Deposits are encountered at shallow depths and consist of orange-brown, damp to slightly moist, medium dense to very dense silty fine to medium grained sands. The Tertiary- aged Santiago Formation underlies the entire site at depth and generally consists of light brown to light gray silty sandstones. Environmental Evaluation: Expansion testing indicated that the Quatemary-aged Terrace Deposits as having "very low" to "low" expansion potential. The soil should be prepared and compacted as directed in the Geotechnical Investigation by Leighton Associates, and footings/slabs for all buildings should be constmcted as directed in Leighton's report. Finding: No impact - As a result of proper grading, compaction and foundation work, the project will not be subject to adverse soil expansion tendencies. e) No Impact. Existing condition: Sewers are available for the proposed project. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project will utilize access to the existing sewage tmnk line serving the property. As a result, no septic tanks or altemative wastewater disposal system facilities are proposed. Finding: No impact - No septic tanks or altemative sewage disposal systems are included in the project description. 17 Rev. 02/22/06 VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Govemment Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or stmctures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Potentially Significant Impact • • • • • Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated • • • • • Less Than Significant No Impact Impact m • • m n a n m • • • H • • • H • m • m • m 18 Rev. 02/22/06 a) Less Than Significant Impact. Existing condition: During constmction of the proposed project, constmction materials such as petroleum products, paint, oils and solvents will be transported and used on the site. Upon completion of constmction of the project, some use of hazardous cleaning products on the site may occur. Other than during this constmction phase, the project will not routinely utilize hazardous substances or materials. Environmental Evaluation: There is no evidence of chemical surface staining, or hazardous materials/waste and/or petroleum contamination on the site. Constmction of the proposed project will involve operation of heavy machinery, which utilizes petroleum products, paint, oils and solvents. No permanent use of such hazardous materials is anticipated except for some cleaning products used within normal business operations. All transport, handling, use, and disposal of any cleaning substances will comply with all federal, state, and local laws regulating the management and use of such materials. Finding: Less than significant impact - It is concluded that the routine amount of hazardous materials utilized during the constmction period is not significant, and therefore the impact to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials is less than significant. b) No Impact. Existing condition: Please refer to the preceding existing condition response. Environmental Evaluation: No significant hazard involving the release of hazardous material into the environment would be anticipated since only regularly used cleaning materials will be utilized, only in normal instances. Finding: No impact - Please refer the response to Section Vll(b). No extraordinary risk of accidental explosion or the release of hazardous substances is anticipated with constmction, development, and implementation or operation of the proposed project. c) No Impact. Existing condition: The subject project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Environmental Evaluation: The subject project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Finding: No impact - Due to the fact that the proposed project site is not located within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. d) No Impact. Existing condition: The subject site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites (Federal database) compiled pursuant to Govemment Code Section 56962.5. Environmental Evaluation: The subject site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites (Federal database) compiled pursuant to Govemment Code Section 56962.5. In addition, it is not on the EPA database of current and potential Superfund sites currently or previously under investigation. Also, to the best of EPA's knowledge, it has been determined that no steps will be taken to list this site on the National Priorities List (NPL). It is not on any list of registered hazardous waste generators, or on a database of sites which treat, store, dispose of, or incinerate hazardous waste. Finding: No impact - The subject property is not included on any list of hazardous materials, and has no known previous use history that would involve the use or storage of hazardous materials. 19 Rev. 02/22/06 e) No Impact. Existing condition: The subject site is located approximately 4 miles northwest of the McClellan- Palomar Airport mnway. The site is not located in the Airport Influence Area of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport (CLUP), adopted April, 1994, prepared by the San Diego Association of Govemments (SANDAG). Environmental Evaluation: The site is not located within an airport land use plan. Finding: No impact - The project is not located within an airport land use plan and therefore will have no impact on the safety of people residing or working in the project area. 0 No Impact. Existing condition: No private airstrip exists in the vicinity of the subject project. Environmental Evaluation: The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Finding: No impact - The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. g) No Impact. Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a single family home. Environmental Evaluation: Neither constmction nor operation of the proposed hotel will significantly affect, block, or interfere with traffic on public streets, including any streets that would be used for an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No emergency response or evacuation plan directs evacuees through the project. Finding: No impact - No improvements are proposed by the project in any area which would physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. h) No Impact. Exisfing condition: The proposed project site currently consists of a motel, restaurant and a single family home. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project site is surrounded on all four sides by development and as a result will not have any significant exposure to wildland fires. Finding: No impact - The subject property will not expose people or stmctures to wildland fires. The site is surrounded by development on all four sides. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quaUty standards or waste discharge requirements? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact • • S • 20 Rev. 02/22/06 b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially aher the existing drainage pattem of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface mnoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off- site? e) Create or contribute mnoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted mnoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area stmctures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or stmctures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? • • El • • • • • • • • • • K • • S • • El • • H • D m n nam Dam nam 21 Rev. 02/22/06 a) Less Than Significant Impact. Existing condition: The subject project is required by law to comply with all federal, state and local water quality regulations, including the Clean Water Act, Califomia Administrative Code Title 23, and specific basin plan objectives identified in the "Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin. The subject property is a fully developed motel, restaurant, and a single family home that will be demolished and replaced with a three-story hotel. The site currently generates mnoff due to its paved surfaces. The Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin identifies specific objectives for the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit. These objectives include the requirement to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Best Management Practices (BMPs). Environmental Evaluation: After development, there will not be an increase in mnoff fi-om the study area. The site will be fully paved and have up to date water management practices in effect. Application, certification and compliance with an NPDES permit for implementation of the subject project will ensure that water quality exiting the subject site will be maintained to a level of acceptability. Finding: Less than significant impact - The proposed project could result in temporary degradation of water quality if it does not demonstrate compliance with all federal, state, and local regulations for water quality. The project proponent shall adhere to applicable RWQCB regulations for control of sedimentation and erosion, including the installation of temporary detention basins or other means of stabilization or impoundment required by the State Water Resources Control Board. All exposed graded areas shall be treated with erosion control pursuant to City of Carlsbad erosion control standards, including hydroseed, berms, desiltation basins, jute matting, sandbags, bladed ditches, or other appropriate methods. Other Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be utilized. b) Less Than Significant Impact. Existing condition: Geotechnical test borings by Leighton Consulting, excavated for the subject project, indicated that groundwater was encountered at depths of 33 to 35 feet. Environmental Evaluation: Based on the estimated depth of the proposed development, Leighton Consulting does not expect groundwater to impact the development. Seepage conditions may be locally encountered after periods of heavy rainfall or irrigation. However, these conditions can be treated on individual basis if they occur. Finding: Less than significant impact - The proposed project is not expected to significantly deplete groundwater supplies, or significantly interfere with ground water recharge. 22 Rev. 02/22/06 c) and d) Less Than Significant Impact. Existing condition: Presently the site drains to the public street. Environmental Evaluation: The project grading will not significantly change the topography, drainage pattems, or amount of mnoff from the site. Surface Drainage will still drain to the public street. Finding: Less than significant impact - The project proponent shall comply with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (December 2003) and adhere to applicable RWQCB regulations for control of sedimentation and erosion, including Best Management Practices, such as installafion of temporary detention basins or other means of stabilization or impoundment required by the State Water Resources Control Board. The following guidelines shall be utilized during design and implemented during construction to reduce runoff and minimize erosion: a. Comply with current drainage design policies set forth in the City of Carlsbad procedures. b. Create desiltation basins where necessary to minimize erosion and prevent sediment transport until the storm drain system is in place. c. Landscape all exposed, manufactured slopes per City of Carlsbad erosion control standards. d. Phase grading operations and slope landscaping to reduce the susceptibility of slopes to erosion. e. Control sediment production from graded building pads with low perimeter berms, desiltation basins, jute matting, sandbags, bladed ditches, or other appropriate methods. e) Less Than Significant Impact. Existing condition: . Impervious surfaces associated with development of the project will incrementally increase mnoff. Environmental Evaluation: Existing storm water drainage systems on the project site have been designed, approved, and in some cases constmcted to accommodate the mnoff projected from the proposed project. No impact to existing storm drain systems and no additional sources of polluted mnoff will result fi-om implementation of the project. Finding: Less than significant impact - No additional pollution of surface waters is anticipated to result from the project. 0 Less Than Significant Impact. Existing condition: The drainage pattem dictates that the drainage water will travel west to the Pacific Ocean. These drainage facilities serve to maintain a decent water quality. Environmental Evaluation: Constmction of the proposed project improvements is required by law to comply with all federal, state and local water quality regulations, including the Clean Water Act and associated NPDES regulations. As mentioned above, the project description includes a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Therefore temporary impacts associated with the constmction operation will be mitigated. The project will not result in permanent or long term degradation of water quality as a result of the proposed pollution control program. Finding: Less tban significant impact - Please refer to the preceding responses. 23 Rev. 02/22/06 g) Less Than Significant Impact. Existing condition: The proposed project improvements do not involve the placement of housing within the 100-year flood hazard area. Environmental Evaluation: No flood hazard areas exist on the property. Finding: No impact - No flood hazard areas exist on the project site. h) No Impact. Existing condition: The subject project does not propose any stmctures within the 100-year flood hazard area. Environmental Evaluation: The project will not place any stmctures within the limits of the identified 100-year flood hazard areas. Thus no impediment to flood flows will result from implementation of the project. Finding: No impact - It is concluded that the proposed project will not impeded or redirect downstream flood flows. i) No Impact. Existing condition: Please refer to existing condition description Vlll(h) above. Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to environmental evaluation discussion Vlll(h) above. No levee or dam exists onsite or downstream of the project. Finding: No impact - It is concluded that the proposed project will not result in increased exposure of people or stmctures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam j) No Impact. Existing condition: Please refer to existing condition description Vlll(h) above. Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to environmental evaluation discussion Vlll(h) above. The project site is located well above the expected 5 to 10 foot tsunamis or seiche water level. Finding: No impact - It is concluded that the proposed project will not result in increased exposure of people or stmctures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving tsunami or seiche events. IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact • • • • • • • • • X 24 Rev. 02/22/06 a) No Impact. Existing condition: The project site is currently developed with a motel, restaurant, associated parking lot and landscaping and a single family residence. It is located in an existing urban area. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project involves the removal ofthe current motel, restaurant and a single family home and replacing them with a three-story hotel. As a result, no division of an existing community would result from development of the project. Finding: No impact - The project would not physically separate any contiguous community areas since a similar use currently occupies the site. b) Less Than Significant Impact. Existing condition: The City of Carlsbad General Plan identifies the subject site as Residential High Density (RH) and Village (V) Land Use. The property is Zoned Multi-family Residential (R-3) and Village Redevelopment (V-R). The project proposes a General Plan Amendment to change the Land Use Element designation of Residential High density (RH) to Travel/Recreation Commercial (TR) and a Zone Change to change the Zoning from Multi-family Residential (R-3) to Commercial Tourist (C-T). Additionally, a Local Coastal Program Amendment is proposed to reflect the changes. These three amendments (General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Local Coastal Program Amendment) will allow the constmction of the new three-story hotel. Environmental Evaluation: Following approval of the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Local Coastal Program Amendment, the proposed project will be consistent with all applicable land use plans. No incompatibility will exist between the proposed project and the new land use regulations on the property. The proposed land use is consistent with the majority of the surrounding land uses which include commercial and hotel uses. Finding: Less Than Significant Impact - Following approval of the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Local Coastal Program Amendment, the project will not be in conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the project. c) No Impact. Existing condition: The City of Carisbad Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities (HMP) allows authorization for the incidental take of sensitive plant and animal species in conjunction with private developments, public projects and other activities which are consistent with the Plan. The subject site is currently fully developed and part of an existing urban area that is identified for urban uses in the HMP. Environmental Evaluation: The subject site is fully developed and part of an existing urban area that is idenfified for urban uses in the HMP. Therefore the proposed project is not in conflict with the HMP. Finding: No impact - The subject project site is consistent with the City ofCarlsbad Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad. The property is not subject to any other habitat conservation plans. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would tiie project: 25 Rev. 02/22/06 a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of fiiture value to the region and the residents of the State? b) Resuh in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? • • • S • • • K a) No Impact. Existing condition: The subject site is currendy developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a single family home. No known or expected mineral deposits of future value to the region and the residents of the state are located in the immediate vicinity of the subject project. Environmental Evaluation: The subject site has been already fully developed. No known mineral resources were identified on the site at the time of original constmction. Finding: No impact - No known mineral resource of regional or statewide value are known that would be affected through implementation of the project. The site is not located in an area of mineral resources as identified in MEIR 93-01, map 5.13-1. b) No Impact. Exisfing condition: Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item X(a) and (b). Environmental Evaluation: Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item X(a) and (b). Finding: No impact - Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item X(a) and (b). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundboume vibration or groundboume noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? • • • S • • • • • • • m • m • m 26 Rev. 02/22/06 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan ^ or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, |^ ^ would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? a) No Impact. Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a single family home site. Environmental Evaluation: In terms of noise generation, the consfi-uction of the proposed project is anticipated to create the greatest amount of noise, inasmuch as the permanent use will not create significant noise. The City of Carlsbad Municipal Code (Chapter 8.48) prohibits constmction activity that would create disturbing, excessive, or offensive noise after sunset of any day, and before 7 A.M. Monday through Friday, and before 8 A.M. on Saturday, and all day Sunday and specified holidays. The Noise Ordinance does not set a defined noise level standard for constmction acfivities, but simply limits the hours of constmction. The significance of constmcfion noise produced during project constmcfion is typically assessed in accordance with the County of San Diego Noise Ordinance. San Diego County Noise Ordinance Section 36.410 stipulates that constmction noise shall not exceed 75 dB for more than 8 hours during any 24-hour period. Noise from the pool and spa area will be attenuated from the adjacent residential by the hotel building. The pool and spa will also have a restriction regarding late night hour useage. Finding: No impact - Both constmction noise levels and permanent noise levels generated by the project are anticipated to comply with City of Carlsbad Noise Policy standards. b) No Impact. Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a single family home and does not generate ground vibrations as part of regular business. Environmental Evaluation: Although some ground vibration may occur during demolition and constmction of the new project, the proposed hotel is not anticipated to expose persons to or generation of excessive groundboume vibration or noise levels. Finding: No impact - The project will not produce any significant groundboume vibration, c) No Impact. Existing condition: Please refer to response XI(a). Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to response XI(a). Finding: No impact - The proposed project will not result in an increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels generated by Carlsbad Boulevard without the project. Noise from Carisbad Boulevard will be reduced due to the location and mass of the proposed building. The proposed buildings orientation and the proposed mechanical ventilation systems effectively reduce noise levels generated by hotel patrons. 27 Rev. 02/22/06 d) No Impact. Existing condition: Please refer to response XI(a). Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to response XI(a). Finding: No impact - The proposed project will not result in an increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. e) No Impact. Existing condition: The subject site is located approximately 4 miles from the McClellan-Palomar Airport. Environmental Evaluation: The subject site is not located within 2 miles of a public airport. Finding: No impact - The subject site will not expose people to excessive noise due to the fact that it is not located within 2 miles of a public airport. 0 No Impact. Existing condition: No private airstrip exists in the vicinity of the subject project. Environmental Evaluation: The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Finding: No impact - The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directiy (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastmcture)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the constmction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the constmction of replacement housing elsewhere? Potentially Significant Impact • • Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated • Less Than Significant Impact No Impact • • H m • • • H • 28 Rev. 02/22/06 a) No Impact. Existing condition: The subject project is an existing commercial/motel/residential use located in an already developed urban area. Implementation of the project would result in a minor increase in the intensity of usage of the site, but not in population. The subject site has been identified as a location for urban development. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project involves the removal of an existing motel, restaurant and a single family residence uses and replacing them with a 104 room three story hotel. No increase in population is anticipated as a result of the service industry jobs related to the 62,354 square feet of hotel development. The proposed project will be consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning. As a result, no inducement for substantial growth, either directly or indirectly will occur through implementation of the subject project. Finding: No impact - The project will not induce substantial growth, nor will it induce population growth by providing infrastmcture to support unplanned growth. The property is designated for urban development consistent with the City's General Plan. b) Less Than Significant Impact. Existing condition: The subject site is currentiy developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a single family home. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project will displace one single family dwelling unit. Finding: Less than significant impact - One single family dwelling unit will be demolished as part of the constmction of the proposed liotel. A less than significant impact will occur as a result of the loss of one housing unit. c) Less Than Significant Impact. Existing condition: The subject site is currentiy developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a single family home. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project will displace one single family dwelling unit Finding: Less than significant impact - One single family dwelling unit will be displaced by the implementation of this project. A substantial number of people will not be displaced and replacement housing will not be necessary. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XHL PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered govemment facilities, a need for new or physically altered govemment facilities, the constmction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 0 Fire protection? Q | | |^ 29 Rev. 02/22/06 ii) Police protection? • • • X ui) Schools? • • • X iv) Parks? • • • X v) Other public faciUties? • • • X a)i. No Impact Existing condition: The subject site is located within the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) area. City of Carlsbad Fire Station No. 1 (1275 Carlsbad Village Drive) serves the subject site. Environmental Evaluation: The subject site is considered by the Carlsbad Fire Department to be within an effective fire response time of Fire Station No. 1. The subject project will not measurably affect anticipated current fire response times. Finding: No impact - The proposed project is within an area anticipated by the Fire Department for urban development, and planned within their standard response time. The project will comply with the standards identified in the Zone 1 LFMP, and therefore will not have any measurable affect on the fire service demands or needs of the area. a)ii. No Impact Existing condition: The Carlsbad Police Department (CPD), located on 2560 Orion Way, services the entire city of Carlsbad. Although the City has not established an official service standard for the department, CPD does maintain a general in-house guideline that is followed in order to assure adequate police service to the community. This guideline suggests a six-minute maximum response time anywhere within the city limits. In order to achieve this level of emergency service and to sufficiently pafrol the city, the CPD currently operates seven beats, each patrolled at any given time by one or two officers. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project does not represent an increase in demand on CPD resources. However, for any increased demand, the department is sufficiently staffed to absorb demand and continue to meet their own general service guideline of maintaining a six-minute emergency response time. Finding: No impact - The proposed project will not result in an increase in demand on police protection resources, and the police department's service guideline will continue to be met. a)iii. No Impact Existing condition: The proposed project is non-residential, and will not cause an increase in demand for schools. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project is non-residential, and will have no impact on school student generation. Finding: No impact - The project will not generate any need for school services and, therefore, will have no impact on schools serving the area. 30 Rev. 02/22/06 a)iv. No Impact Existing condition: The proposed project is non residential and will not create an increase in demand for parks. The existing Zone 1 parks, including Pine Avenue Park and Hosp Grove Park fiilfill Zone 1 's park requirement adequately. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project is non-residential and will not create an increase in demand for parks. Finding: No impact - The proposed project is non residential and will not create an increase in demand for parks. The existing Zone 1 parks, including Pine Avenue Park and Hosp Grove Park fiilfill Zone 1 's park requirement adequately. a)v. No Impact Existing condition: Sewer: The Carlsbad Municipal Water District provides sewer service to the subject site. Sewage from the site is processed at the Encina Wastewater Treatment Facility, via a sewer tmnk line located in the surrounding developed sfreets and lateral lines that currently serve the property. The Zone 1 LFMP stipulates that sewer tmnk line capacity must meet demand as determined by appropriate sewer districts and must be provided concurrent with development. Water: The Carlsbad Municipal Water District provides water service to the subject site. Water is provided via an existing water line and lateral currently connected to the project. The Zone 1 LFMP stipulates that water line capacity must meet demand as determined by appropriate water district and must be provided concurrent with development. Also, that a minimum ten day average storage capacity must be provided prior to any development. Environmental Evaluation: Sewer: The subject project is not anticipated to exceed sewer demand planned by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District for the subject site. Water: Tlie subject project is not anticipated to exceed water demand planned by the Municipal Water District for the subject site. Finding: No impact - The proposed project will generate sewer and water usage demands anticipated at the time of initial constmction of the existing building. No unanticipated demands will occur as a result of the project. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the constmction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? • • • H • • • m 31 Rev. 02/22/06 a) No Impact Existing condition: The proposed project is non-residential and will not create an increase in demand for parks. The existing Zone 1 parks, including Pine Avenue Park and Hosp Grove Park fulfill Zone 1 's park requirement adequately. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project is non-residential and will not create an increase in demand for parks. The existing Zone 1 parks, including Pine Avenue Park and Hosp Grove Park fulfill Zone 1 's park requirement adequately. Finding: No impact - The proposed project will not result in an increase in demand beyond that already accommodated, on recreational facilities of any kind. b) No Impact Existing condition: The proposed project does include recreational facilities for hotel guests. A pool, spa, and indoor exercise area will be constmcted for the use of the hotels patrons. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed recreational facilities will not have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Finding: No impact - The proposed recreational facilities will not result in any adverse physical effect on the environment XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic pattems, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in insufficient parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting altemative transportation (e.g., bus tum- outs, bicycle racks)? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact • • X • • • X • • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X 32 Rev. 02/22/06 a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate 832[Average Daily Trips (ADT) and 59|peak hour Jnjjs. _ ^ - The present uses generate 326 ADT. The net increase is 506 ADT. This traffic will utilize the following roadway: ^ N ^ Carlsbad Boulevar4_ExistingU-affic on tiiis arterials is 17,725lApT (2005) and the 2005j)eak hour level of service at the arterial intersection(s) impacted by the project is E[ The design capacity of the arterial road affected b^' the proposed project is 20,000 to 40,00(^ vehicles per day. Thejjrojecttraf^^ \\\ existing traffic volume and the design capacity respectively. While the increase in traffic from the proposed n \ project may be slightly noticeable, the street system has been designed and sized to accommodate traffic from the ^ \ project and cumulative development in the City of Carlsbad. The proposed project would not, therefore, cause an \\ \ increase in ttaffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The \ > \ impacts from the proposed project are, therefore, less than significant. . \ ^ i \ \ 1 b) Less Than Significant Impact. SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has designated ; \ tiu-ee roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in • * Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The Existing and Buildout average daily traffic (ADT) and \ Existing LOS on these designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is: ', Existing ADT"" LOS Buildout ADT* Rancho Santa Fe Road 17-35 "A-D" 35-56 El Camino Real 27-49 "A-C" 33-62 Palomar Airport Road 10-57 "A-D" 30-73 SR78 124-142 up, 156-180 1-5 199-216 "D" 260-272 Comment [3T1]: Page: 16 (See project specific traffic study or SANDAG Traffic Generatore) Comment [jr2]: (See project speciSc traffic study or SANDAG Traffic Comment [JTS]: (Focus discussion on Prime, Major and Seoondaty Arterial roads. Otdy discuss Local and Collector streets if project will create a potentially significant WSkt bxxpact.) ComtnenA: CJT4]: Table 2-1 3 Tmffic MiHutarii^ Program, Carlsbad Growth Manf^;enient PUm - Planning Library GM 1129) ^ Comment [JTS]: (See 2003 Tiaffic Mcmitoring Program, Carlsbad Growth MffiiJ^ement Plan - Pianning Library GM 1129) Comment [B6]: (See Table 1, Page 3, General Plan Circulation Element) * The numbers are in thousands of daily trips. The Congestion Management Program's (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is "E", or LOS "F' if that was tiie LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS "F" in 1990). Accordingly, all designated roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS. Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region's general and community plans. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan and, therefore, its traffic was used in modeling the buildout projections. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) "E" standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP sttategies. Based on the design capacity(ies) of the designated roads and highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short-term and at buildout. No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components and is not located within the McClellan-Palomar Airport influence area. No impact assessed. d) No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constmcted to City standards; and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed. e) No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police Departments. No impact assessed. 0 No Impact. The proposed project is not requesting a parking variance. Additionally, the project would comply with the City's parking requirements to ensure an adequate parking supply. No impact assessed. 33 Rev. 02/22/06 g) No Impact. The project is near public fransportation (i.e. Bus & Rail Transit). Potentially Significant Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater freatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Confrol Board? b) Require or resuh in the constmction of new water or wastewater freatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the constmction of which would cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the constmction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the constmction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitiements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater freatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? • • Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact • ED • • H • • H • • •ED • • S • • • • S • • • K a) Less Than Significant Impact. Existing condition: The proposed project will create a small increase in wastewater generated by the existing motel/restaurant'residential use. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project will create a small increase in wastewater. Finding: Less than significant impact - The project would have a less than significant impact on wastewater freatment. 34 Rev. 02/22/06 b) No Impact. Existing condition: Please refer to the previous response. The project will not result in a significant increase in quantity of wastewater generation already handled by the Encina Wastewater Treatment Plant. Environmental Evaluation: The project will not result in a significant increase in quantity of wastewater generation already handled by the Encina Wastewater Treatment Plant. Finding: No impact - No additional water or wastewater freatment facilities will be required due to the constmction of the proposed project. c) Less Than Significant Impact. Existing condition: The proposed project site is an existing commercial/motel/residential use. Storm water drainage facilities were constmcted at the time of initial development and are functioning and in place currently. Environmental Evaluation: Minimal improvements will be made to the drainage facilities. Both upstream and downstream facilities contain adequate capacity and functionality to accept the storm water demands resulting when the project is complete. Finding: Less than significant impact - No significant environmental effects will result from the implementation of new drainage facilifies during constmction of the proposed hotel. d) Less Than Significant Impact. Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a single family home. Water supply facilities were constmcted at the time of initial development are functioning and in place currently. Environmental Evaluation: Water service will be supplied by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District. The site is identified in the City's MEIR 93-01 for urban uses. Proposed water usage on the site will be for landscape irrigation and the regular water usage associated with a 104 room hotel. The project will have no significant impact on water supplies. Finding: Less than significant impact - The project will not result in a significant impact to water supplies. e) Less Than Significant Impact. Existing condition: Please refer to response XVl(a). Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to response XVI(a). Finding: Less than significant impact - No significant increase in wastewater treatment will result from the project. 0 No Impact. Existing condition: The subject site is currentiy developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a single family home. Environmental Evaluation: The project site has been planned as an urban community. No unanticipated significant increase in solid waste disposal is anticipated to result from implementation of the project. The waste provider will be Waste Management Services, and the City's engineering staff will have Waste Management Services review the site plan for service adequacy as part of the approval process. Finding: No impact - No measurable significant increase in impact on solid waste creation is expected to result from the subject project. 35 Rev. 02/22/06 g) No Impact. Existing condition: See previous response. The subject project is not anticipated to create any significant increase in the amount of solid waste. The project is required to comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Environmental Evaluation: The project will create no significant impact on solid waste collection and disposal, and will comply with federal, state and local statutes. Finding: No impact - The project will create no significant impact on solid waste collection and disposal, and will comply with federal, state and local statutes. XVII. 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 Califomia history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumula- tively 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? Potentially Significant Impact • Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact • H • n n M n • • s • Less Than Significant Impact. Existing condition: The subject site is currentiy developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a single family home. The site drains directly into the Pacific Ocean. The project must also obtain a NPDES permit prior to constmction. The permit will require that the project develop and implement specific erosion control and storm water pollution prevention plans to protect water quality. Environmental Evaluation: After development, there will be an increase in mnoff from the study area. A portion of the increase in mnoff will be due to the use of imported water into the study area for landscaping, etc. The remaining water increase will be due to the increased impervious area within the project site. The drainage pattem dictates that this drainage water will flow west to the Pacific Ocean. Application, certification and compliance with an NPDES permit for implementation of the subject project will ensure that water quality entering the Pacific Ocean will be maintained to a level of acceptability. Finding: Less than significant impact - Please refer to the responses to Sections IV and V. 36 Rev. 02/22/06 b) Less Than Significant Impact. Existing condition: The subject site is currendy developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a single family home. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project will contribute incrementally to air pollution and fraffic congestion in the vicinity. Finding: Less than significant impact - It is concluded that the cumulative impacts to air quality and fraffic will be less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact. Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a single family home. Environmental Evaluation: The project does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectiy. Finding: Less than significant impact - Potential adverse effects on the human population have been evaluated in preceding sections of this checklist. No unmitigable adverse environmental effects attributable to the project have been identified. XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, Califomia, 92008. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. 2. Comprehensive Land Use Plan McClellan-Palomar Airport, San Diego Association of Govemments, (April, 1994) 3. Current Rules and Regulations, County of San Diego Air Pollution Confrol District (November, 2002). 4. San Diego County Important Farmland, Califomia Department of Conservation (September, 2002). 5. Uniform Building Code - Volume 1 (1997); Table 18-1-B. 6. Special Publication 42, Califomia Geological Survey; State Geologist Division of Mines and Geology (May 1996). 7. Traffic Impact Analysis, Carlsbad Springhill Suites, Linscott Law and Greenspan., (October 27, 2005). 8. Storm Water Management Plan, Springhill Suites, Aquaterra Engineering, Inc. April 26, 2005. 9. Preliminary Hydrology Report, Springhill Suites, Aquaterra Engineering, Inc. October 10, 2005. 10. Addendum No. 1, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, DKN Hotels, Leighton Consulting, Inc, November 23 , 2005. 11. Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan, City of Carlsbad Planning Department, (July 1987). 37 Rev. 02/22/06