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