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