Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-01-07; Planning Commission; Resolution 4219‘I e 0 ai PLAMYING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4219 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANVING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION AND OCCUPATION OF A 162 ROOM HOTEL LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD AND PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAG-EMENT ZONE 22. CASE NAME: PALOMAR BEACH RESORT CASE NO.: SDP 97- 19/CDP 97-40 WHEREAS, Palomar Beach Resort, LLC., “Developer”, has filed a application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Palomar Beacb LLC, “Owner”, described as A portion of Lot “H” of Rancho Aqua Hedionda, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to partition map thereof no. 823, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 16,1896 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of January, l! a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all tt and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by s considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered a1 relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Commission as follows: ~ A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. I B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the : Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative De according to Exhibit “ND“ dated November 25,1997, and “PII” dated Nc 12,1997, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following i 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Findings: 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project ma significant impact on the environment. 2. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significantlj by this project. 3. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analj considered the Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein identifier project and any comments thereon prior .to RECOMMENDING APPROVA project. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, the Planning Con finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effe environment and thereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative Decla 4. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the ind judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, h.eld on the 7th day of January, 199 following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioner’s Compas, Heineman, 1 Nielsen, Savary, and Welshons NOES: l7 II 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BAILEY NO@, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: ‘3 MICHAEL J. HOLZMLER Planning Director ~ PC RES0 NO. 4219 -2- NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project AddressLocation: Southeast comer of Palomar Airport Road and Carlsb Boulevard, City of Carlslbad, County of San Diego, State California. Project Description: Request for a Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Pern to allow construction and operation of a 162 room, three story hotel wi associated parking and landscaping on a previously disturbed site. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described proje pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act a the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on t: environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in t; Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Plannir Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments fiom the public a invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planrung Department within 20 days of da of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Michael Grim in the Planning Department (760) 438-1 161, extension 4499. DATED: NOVEMBER 25,1997 CASE NO: SDP 97-19ICDP 97-40 CASE NAME: PALOMAR BEACH RESORT PUBLISH DATE: NOVEMBER 25,1997 - Planning Director 2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-11 61 - FAX (61 9) 438-08s 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSIMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: SDP 97”19/CDP 97- DATE: November 12, 1997 BACKGROUND 1’. CASE NAME: Palomar Beach Resort 2. APPLICANT: Bill Canepa 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 829 2nd Street, Encinitas CA 92024 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: December 24, 1996 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for a Site Development Plan and Coastal DeveloDme Permit to allow construction and oueration of a 162 room, three story hotel with associatl parking and landscauing on a previously disturbed site, south of Palomar Airport Road, betwe1 Carlsbad Boulevard and the North San Diego Railroad right-of-way. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS P0TENTId4L,LY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this projer involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impa Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. c] Land Use and Planning TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services 0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources c] Utilities & Service Systems 0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics c] Water 0 Hazards Cultural Resources 0 Air Quality Noise [7 Recreation 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03/28/96 e DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) I 0 [11 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on . environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on t environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigati measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIT DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [XI I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlj document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigatit measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Negati Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on tl environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potential significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier pursuant to applicab standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, includiI revisions or mitigation measures that are imposedl upon the proposed project. Therefor a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. .yq /;yy iLf d/+f /2.c : ~.~ &; " ,' /,&+7 ,/ Planner Signature h / Date ' ". lhJhkQ&@&h It w143 Planning Directoys Signakdre Date 2 Rev. 03/28/96 0 e ENVIRONMENTAL, IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the C. conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a signific: effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the followi pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and hum; factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negati . Declaration, or to rely 0n.a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. e A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that a adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following ea1 question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced informatit sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, 1 it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. e “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that tl potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adoptc general standards and policies. 0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporatic of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and tk City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce tl effect to a less than significant level. e “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that a effect is significant. e Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significax effect on the environment, but &l potentially significant effects (a) have been analyze adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicabl standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigate Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed up0 the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to c supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prio environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additiona environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). e When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily require1 to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been.analyzed adequately in an earlier E11 pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement o Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. e A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence tha the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 3 Rev. 03/28/96 e e + e If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, a those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In t: case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporate may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. e An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and includi: not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, a but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect h the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less th significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact h not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not redu the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is n possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significa effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of tl form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attentic should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determint significant. 4 Rev. 03/28/96 .* 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (#l, pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#l, pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (#l, pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (# 1 , pgs 5.6- 1 - 5.6- 18) (#I, pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (#l, pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (#1, pgs 5.5-1 - c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 5.5-6) housing? (#l, pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (#l, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#1, pgs d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#I, pgs 5.1-1 - e) Landslides or mudflows? (# 1, pgs 5.1 - 1 - 5.1 - 15) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l, pgs 5.1-1 - 51-15)' 5.1-15) 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) g) Subsidence ofthe land? (#I, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) h) Expansive soils? (#l, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#1, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#1, pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2- 14) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (#l, pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-14) 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cl 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 cl cl 0 17 cl 0 0 0 LessThan Nc Significan Imp2 t Impact €3 w 0 €3 0 Ixl 0 w 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 [XI 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 lxl El 0 Ix1 0 IXI 0 [XI 0 [x1 0 1xI 0 Ixl 0 w Rev. 03/28/96 a 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (#l, pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-14) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (#l, pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-14) f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (#l, pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (#l, h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l, pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2- body? (#1, PgS 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1) pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1) 11) Potentially Significant Impact cl 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (#I, pgs 0 0 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (#l, pgs 5.3- [xi 0 1 - 5.3-12) - 5.3-12) IXI 0 b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l, pgs 5.3-1 c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause d) Create objectionable odors? (#l, pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) any change in climate? (#l, pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) 0 0 0 0 VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l, pgs b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (eg. farm equipment)? (#l, pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7-22) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#l, e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (#l, f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#I, g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l, pgs 5.7-1 - proposal result in: 5.7-1 - 5.7-22) (#1, PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7-22) PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7-22) PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7-22) PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7-22) 5.7-22) €3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 LessThan No Significan Impac t Impact 0 w urn c3 w 0 w c7 IXI 0 IXI o [XI 0 0 0 0 0 [XI 0 €3 0 0 0 €3 0 w 0 w 0 w 0 IXI 0 [xi Rev. 03/28/96 0 a Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (#l, pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) b) Locally designated species (eg. heritage trees)? (#l, c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l, pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l, pgs 5.4- pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) (#l, pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) 1 - 5.4-24) Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (#I, b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral proposal? PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5) 0 0 inefficient manner? (#l, pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5) 0' CI resource that would be of future value to the region and 0 0 the residents ofthe State? (#l, pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5) IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (#I, pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-3) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#I, pgs 5.10.1-1 - c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, 5.10.1-3) hazards? (#I, pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-3) health hazards? (#l, pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-3) grass, ortrees? (#I, pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-3) 0 0 0 0 0 (7 (7 El X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#I, pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9- b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#1, pgs 5.9- 15) 0 o 1 - 5.9-15) 0 0 XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (#I, pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6) b) Police protection? (#l, pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6) 0 o 0 0 0 C) Schools? (#l, pgs 5.12.7-1 - 5.12.7-5) 7 Less Than No Significan Impac t Impact 0 [XI DE3 0 .El 0 IXI 0 w 0 [XI o w 0 El 0 €3 cl Ixl 0 IXI 0 Ixi 0 Ixi 0 El 0 [XI 0 Ixl 0 !XI 0 Ix1 Rev. 03/28/96 e 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significan Impa Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (#l, e) Other govemmental services? (#1, pgs 5.12.1- 1 - PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) 0 0 0 IXI 5.12.8-7) 17 0 0. [x] XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (#l, pgs 5:12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5) b) Communications systems? (#l, pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.8-7) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l, pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) e) Storm water drainage? (#l, pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) f) Solid waste disposal? (#l, pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3) g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l, pgs 5.12.2-1 - facilities? (#l, pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) 5.12.3-7) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l, pgs 5-130 - 5- 13 1) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l, pgs 5-130 - 5- c) Affect historical resources? (#I, pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l, pgs e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the 131) 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) potential impact area? (#l, pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) XV.RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (# 1, pgs 5.12.8- 1 - b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l, pgs 5.12.8-7) 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w DH 0 Ixt 0 IXI 0 El 0 w 0 (XI 0 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 [x] 0 0 El 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w 0 O [XI 0 0 (XI 0 0 Ix1 0 w 0 0 (XI 0 0 w 8 Rev. 03/28/96 .a 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significan Impac Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the 0 0 0 habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively - considerable? 0 0 [zl (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 0 0 0 [XI IXI [XI XVII. ’ EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses of the project site have been conducted on two occasions. First was th Conditional Negative Declaration that reviewed the construction and operation of a 235 roon three story hotel. Both the size of the hotel and the area of development were larger tha anticipated for the current proposal. Second was the Master Environmental Impact Report fc the 1994 General Plan Update, which reviewed “ the potential impacts of buildout of the City‘ General Plan, including transportation and air quality impacts. Since the project involves the construction and operation of a 162 room hotel within a previousl: disturbed, commercially designated site, the potential impacts in the areas of land use an1 planning, population and housing, regional transportation and circulation, energy and minera resources, hazards, public services, utilities and service systems, cultural resources and recreatio; have already been discussed and addressed in the Master Environmental Impact Repon Therefore, with regard to these potential impacts, there will be no additional significant effect. due to this development that were not analyzed in the MEIR and no new or additional mitigatior or alternatives are required. All feasible mitigation measures identified in the previous MEIF which are appropriate to this project have been incorporated into this project. The potential impacts with regard to visual aesthetics of the proposed hotel were not full! addressed in the previous environmental reviews, therefore these potential impacts are analyze( in this environmental review. 9 Rev. 03/28/96 .* e e DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The proposed Palomar Beach Resort project involves the construction and operation of a lr room hotel and associated parking and landscaping. Also included are the deletion of Solam Drive and the development of some frontage improvements along Carlsbad Boulevard. T. hotel would be located within a previously disturbed area of the lot, clear of any agriculture sensitive native vegetation. The project site would take access off of a newly created signalizc intersection on Carlsbad Boulevard, sharing this access with the Solamar Mobile Home Par The additional traffic generated by the project is approximately 1,620 average vehicle trips p day, which can be accommodated by Carlsbad Boulevard. The hotel would be three stories, : feet high with a Mediterranean style architecture. No significant environmental impacts a anticipated with the proposed Palomar Beach Resort project. AESTHETICS: The proposed Palomar Beach Resort will be visible from Palomar Airport Road and Carlsbz Boulevard. The site layout and building have been designed to minimize visual impacts. TI horseshoe shaped building reduces bulk and massing of the structure. The detailed architectur treatment on all four sides of the building soften its appearance on the previously vacant lot ar the building height does not significantly block public views of the Pacific Ocean. Therefore, r significant visual impacts will result from the proposed project. AIR QUALITY: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the update 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle mile traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactiv organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are th major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since thl San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considerec cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in th 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 varie! of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provision for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measure to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demanc Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mas: transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5 participation in regional’ growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable an( appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into thc design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project i located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is markec “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, thc preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by Ciiq Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for ail quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequen 10 Rev. 03/28/96 .L 0 e projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at t Planning Department. CIRCULATION: - The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updat 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequs . to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severe impacted by. regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. The generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections ‘along Carlsb Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersectio 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, numerol 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 develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalk pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulatic strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate 1 State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City . control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have eithc 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 tk failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefor1 the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because tk recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, include a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement C Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’ Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulatio impacts is required. 11 Rev. 03/28/96