HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-09-02; Planning Commission; Resolution 43720 e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4372
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM TO DEVELOP A 145 ROOM HOTEL AND
ASSOCIATED PARKING AND RECREATIONAL AMENITIES
ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG THE
SOUTH SIDE OF OWENS AVENUE TO THE NORTH OF
PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND EAST OF CAMINO VIDA
ROBLE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5
CASE NAME: COURTYARD BY MARRIOTT
CASE NO.: GPA 98-02/SP lSl(B)/CUP 98-14/HDP 97-20
WHEREAS, Carlsbad HHG/APM Hotel Venture, Limited Part
“Developer”, has filed a verified application (GPA 98-02/SP lSl(B)/CUP 98-14/HD;
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by E. Stanley Rodier and C
Airport Centre Owners Association, “Owner”, described as
A portion of Lots 26 and 28 of Carlsbad Tract 81-46, Unit No.
2, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California, according to Map thereof No. 11288, filed in the
Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, July 16,
1985.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 2nd day of Septembe
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request (GPA 9
181 (B)/ CUP 98-14/HDP 97-20); and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all te
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by st
1 considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all
~
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THZREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the E
Commission as follows:
e 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Mitigated
Declaration according to Exhibit "ND" dated July 27,1998, and "PII" &
17,1998, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following :
FindinPs:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analy
considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts
identified for this project and said comments thereon, and the Mitigation Monitc
Reporting Program, on file in the Planning Department, prior to RECOMME
APPROVAL of the project. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments the1
Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence the project wi
significant effect on the environment and hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVA
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
2. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declara
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared in accorda
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad.
3. The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration ref
independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
Conditions:
1. The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the CourQ
Marriott Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, dated Septel
1998.
...
...
...
. ..
. ..
...
...
PC RES0 NO. 4372 -2-
e 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of September 199
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners Compas, Heineman, a
Monroy
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioners Nielsen, Savary, and Welshons
ABSTAIN:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
" MICHAEL J. HOLZM~~LER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 4372 -3-
0 0
- City of Carlsba(
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressLocation: North of Palomar Airport Road and east of Camino Vida RO
along the south side of Owens Avenue.
Project Description: A General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, S
Development Plan and Hillside Development Permit to develo]
3-story, 145 room hotel (Courtyard by Marriott), and associa
parking, landscaping and recreational amenities on 3.74 acres.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described projt
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
Mitigated Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact
the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file
the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in tl
Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from tl
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within :
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Chris DeCerbo in the Plannil
Department at (760) 43 8- 1 16 1 , extension 4445.
DATED: July 27, 1998
CASE NO: GPA 98-02/SP 19 1 (B)/SDP 97-23/HDP 97-20
CASE NAME: COURTYARD BY MARRIOTT
PUBLISH DATE: July 27,1998
Planning Director
2075 La Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 (760) 438-1 161 FAX (760) 438-08!
0
ENVJRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: GPA 98-02/SP 18 l(B)/SDP 97-23/HDP 97-2
DATE: 7/17/9
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: COURTYARD BY MARRIOTT
2. APPLICANT: Carlsbad HHG/APM Venture LP
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 4441 W. Airport Freeway, Irving,
Texas 75062 (972) 659-0259
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: 3/24/98
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This proiect entails a General Plan Amendment, Specific P1a1
Amendment, Site Development Plan and Hillside Development Permit to enable th
development of a 3-stow (33’ tall with allowed height protrusions up to 38’ 4.25”). 145 roon
hotel (Courtyard by Marriott), and associated parking, landscaping and recreational amenities 0:
a 3.74 acre property located north of Palomar Airport Road and east of Camino Vida Roble alon
the south side of Owens Avenue.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this projec
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impac
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning [XI Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
[XI Air Quality 0 Noise Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on th
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[XI I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on th
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigatio
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIV
DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and a
ENYIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
0 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 earlic
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigatio
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Mitigate
Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to E
addressed.
0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on th
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potential1
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Master Environmenk
Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voide
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed projec
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
7-22," yg
Date
+/z3/40
Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a
significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in
the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical,
biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and
provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously
approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
e 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.
0 “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that
the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed
adopted general standards and policies.
0 “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.
e “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that
an effect is significant.
0 Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially
significant effect on the environment, but &l potentially significant effects (a)
have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative
Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed
project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental
EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no
additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
e When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily
3 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated,
or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that
earlier EIR.
0 A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial
evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the
environment.
0 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid
preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less
than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer
prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant
Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated
Negative Declaration may be prepared.
e An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and
including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially
significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that
reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding
Considerations” for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an
earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less
than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 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 c
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular atte.
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be detem
significant.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than I
Significant Significant Significan Im Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation Incorporated I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18; #2: Pgs 90-93) 0 Ix1 [
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the 0 0 c
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18; #2: Pgs 90-93))
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18; #2: PgS 90-93)) 0 0 c
4 Rev. 03/28/96
e e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant Impact
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: #2 Pgs 90-93)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#1 :Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-1 8 #2 Pgs
0
0
90-93)
Potentially Less Than 1 Significant Significan 111.
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless t Impact
0 0 E
o 0 1
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)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 -
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
0 0 o
0 El 0
5.5-6)
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 0 0 0
I:
c
c
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; #2 Pgs. 77-84)
b) Seismic ground shaking? ((#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1- 1 -
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
g) Subsidence of the land? (# 1 :Pgs 5.1 - 1 - 5.1 - 15; #2 Pgs.
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2 Pgs. 77-
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
Pgs. 77-84)
((#l:PgS 5.1-1 - 5.1.15; #2 PgS. 77-84)
5.1-15; #2 Pgs. 77-84)
Pgs. 77-84)
5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2 PgS. 77-84))
77-84)
84))
5.1-15; #2 PgS. 77-84)
0
0
0 o
0 o
0
0 CI
0
0
0
0
0
0 E O €
0 €
0 €
0 €
0 €
0 I:
0 c
0 c
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff! (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 52-11; #2 Pgs. 84-
0 0 0 €
0 0 €
1 1; #2 Pgs. 84-90)
90)
5 Rev. 03/28/96
I) 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Impact
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..2-11; #2 Pgs.
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..2-11; #2 Pgs. 84-90)))
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..2-11; #2 Pgs. 84-90)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? ((#1 :Pgs
84-90))
body? ((#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11; #2 Pgs. 84-90)
((#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
1 1; #2 Pgs. 84-90)
5.2-1 - 5..2-11; #2 PgS. 84-90)
0
cl
0
0
0
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-
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
1 - 5.3-12)
- 5.3-12)
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
(e.g. 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?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
proposal result in:
5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
CI
0
0
0
€4
0
0
0
Ix1
0
0
0
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6 Rev. 03/28/96
1
IIT
c
E
E
E
€
€
€
[:
€
€
€
c
€
€
€
€
€
I) e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than 1
Significant Significant Significan Irr
Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation Incorporated g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -
5.7.22) 0 0 0 c
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)? (#2)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#2)
(#2)
- 5.4-24)
0
0
0
0
0
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5
proposal?
(#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) o
0
0
1 - 5.13-9)
& 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
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)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l: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,
5.10.1-5)
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
healthhazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
0
0
CI
0
0
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-
15) cl
7
CI 0 [:
0 0 a 0
0 0
0 0
€
[
€
I:
0 0 c
0 0 I:
0 0 €
0 0 €
0 0 €
0 0 €
0 0 €
0 0 €
0 0 €
Rev. 03/28/96
0 6
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
1 - 5.9-15) 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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4)
C) Schools? (#l:PgS 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1,
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-7)
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 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
e) Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
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 -
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
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? (#l:Pgs
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.1 1-5)
5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5)
5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10;#2
10;#2 Pgs. 44-50)
10;#2 Pgs. 44-50)
PgS. 44-50)
0 0 0
0
0
0
0 0 I7 0
Potentially Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
CI
0 0 0
0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
CI
0
0
0
8
Less Than 7 Significan Im
t Impact
0 €
0 I: cl I: 0 € 0 €
0 I:
0 €
0 I: 0 I:
0 I: 0 I: 0 c 0 €
0 cl
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Rev. 03/28/96
€
c
€
€
€
€
e e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 0
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10;#2 Pgs.
5.8-1 - 5.8-10;#2 PgS. 44-50))
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
44-50)
Potentially Less Than 1
Significant Significan Im
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless t Impact
0 0 €
cl I:
XV.RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 - cl cl c
5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) 0 0 € b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#1 :Pgs
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 0
(“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, 0 CI 0
either directly or indirectly?
c
I:
c
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis of this proposed hotel project has been completed through the General
Plan Update (GPA 94-01) Environmental Impact Report (EIR 81-6). The MEIR is cited
as source #1 in the preceding checklist. EIR 81-06 is source #2. This proposal is
consistent with the applicable portions of the General Plan and is considered a
Subsequent Project that was described in MEIR 93-01 as within its scope. All feasible
mitigation measures identified in MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to this and related
Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR 93-01) and the Airport Business Center
Subsequent Project have been incorporated into this project.
9 Rev. 03/28/96
9 (I)
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONDZNVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This Courtyard by Marriott project is a 145 room hotel that will include a limited service
restaurant (1,752 square feet), two small meeting rooms (1,051 square feet total), and
associated parking (203 spaces) and recreation facilities (outdoor courtyard with pool and
jacuzzi). The project will be developed on a pre-graded 3.74 acre property located along
Owens Avenue in the Carlsbad Airport Center planned industrial park. The proposed
hotel is a 80,398 square foot, three story structure that measures 33’ in height with
allowed height protrusions up to 38’ 4.25”. Driveway access will be provided off of
Owens Avenue and on-site parking will be provided consistent with the City’s parking
requirements. Project grading will include 12,000 cubic yards of cut and 7,000 cubic
yards of fill.
In order to adequately park the proposed project, the applicant is proposing to convert
24,885 (.57 acres) square feet of General Plan Open Space to Planned Industrial use.
This General Plan Open Space would be replaced with 25,000 square feet of native
habitat that is located on Lot 101 of the Carlsbad Research Center (CT 85-24). The
General Plan Open Space area that is proposed to be developed with parking uses is a
portion of Lot 26 of the Carlsbad Airport Center (CT 8 1-46) that is located immediately
adjacent to and east of the subject property. The Open Space area is comprised of a
manufactured slope that was developed in association with the original grading of the
industrial subdivision and is planted with ornamental landscaping. The area also includes
a storm drain and its outlet structure. Adjacent to the proposed open space encroachment
area is a drainage that contains oak trees. The oak tree area will be required to be staked
and flagged in the field and posted as off-limits to construction activity prior to the
issuance of a grading permit.
11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
Land Use
The subject property is designated Planned Industrial (P-I), is zoned Planned Industrial
(P-M) and is located within the Carlsbad Airport Center Specific Plan (SPl 8l(A)).
Specific Plan 18 l(A) designates the project site (Lot # 28 of CT 81-46) for the
development of commercial uses, including hotels. The proposed 144 room Marriott
Courtyard hotel is therefore consistent with the General Plan, P-M Zone and Specific
Plan 1 8 1 (A).
10 Rev. 03/28/96
e e
The project applicant is proposing project encroachment (24,885 sq. ft.) into General Plan
Open Space to develop required project parking. Consistent with Policy No. C.20. of the
Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan, the project is proposing to
mitigate this Open Space (OS) encroachment through the conversion of 25,000 sq. f3. of
Planned Industrial designated land to Open Space (Lot 101 of the Carlsbad Research
Center). In that the proposed OS is: (1) of equal size or larger, (2) landscaped with
native vegetation compared to ornamental landscaping on the existing OS, and (3) is in
close proximity to other OS, this proposal would be consistent with the General Plan.
Biology
The project site is a pregraded site that is sparsely vegetated with non-native grasses and
ornamental landscaping. The General Plan Open Space area that is proposed to be
developed with parking uses is comprised of a manufactured slope that was developed in
association with the original grading of the industrial subdivision (CT 81-46) and is
planted with ornamental landscaping. The area also includes a storm drain and its outlet
structure. Adjacent to the proposed open space encroachment area is a drainage that
contains oak trees. The oak tree area will be required to be staked and flagged in the field
and posted as off-limits to construction activity prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Air Quality
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the
updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption
and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of
carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended
particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well
as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment
basin”, any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant; therefore,
continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have
cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a
variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include:
1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with
development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of
Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage
alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to
promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth
management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air
quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or
are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project
is located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is
11 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
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.
TransportatiodCirculation
The Zone 5 Local Facilities Management Plan and Final Master EIR 93-01 projected that
the subject property would develop with 43,778 sq. ft of commercial uses. Development
of the project site with 43,778 sq. ft. of commercial uses would generate 1,751 ADT (40
ADTI 1000 sq. ft.). In comparison, the proposed 145 room hotel will generate 1,305
ADT (9ADT/Guest Room). The implementation of subsequent projects that are
consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased
traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic;
however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional
through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include
all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even
with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are
projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at
buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout,
numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These
include: 1) measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with
need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle
routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3)
participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional
through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts
that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate
General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of
the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic,
therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This
project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not
required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council
Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for
circulation impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all
subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR, including this project,
therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
0 e
III. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the
City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad,
California, 92009, (760) 438-1 161, extension 4471.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan
Update (MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. Environmental Impact Report for the Airport Business Center (EIR 81-6),
WESTEC Services, Inc., dated March, 1982.
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the oak trees which are located in the
drainage to the immediate south and west of the project shall be required to be staked
and flagged in the field and posted as off-limits to construction activity.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITOMNG PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING
MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO
THE PROJECT.
A O.w CIIZZILjf t4Jw.w am Z”VE
Date U Signature p3(e Pumcscnd H&m-l’iL1
13 Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENT~ITIG*T,*N MONITORING CHE a [ST: Page 1 of 1
k
n n
9
ua
$
b ua
0. n
a g
F
F 00
n
4
n
.. 2
Ei 3 OB
6
K;1 :z 20 a> zn W z do 0 LLCY 0
Z
s 0 a3 cn cn .- L i3 =cu
E E
r
MQ a,
m a,
0 a, v)
L
+ 5
0
Iii 2
lii
s 5 I-$ Yo 6 fY
w n
n 2
252 mL:Q -= v) a, m+ E
ES U-J mu) .g .o Q
& .r - zgg
g €5 .- c '5 20
=E .g .g a, 5- E LE2 p L: '5
"OD 9h
kg .F
a .v, .g
0% E 8 o ^a
8 5: 0 *s 2% w mE 2;s uzs SE m 0 0- &US
.-
uo
+
O3Q .r g E
+
Q'G u)
OL
Q+ L
-x c 000
- .-
.- u a, -I" 'E u >r
.- a, u e+
gQ gj
.r $ a, (USE
oE
& .o .- sk
=-EA cO.13)mcq
5.rgz %% 3: a,"ocu E $2 s ~2 Qg
0 Eo .=moa, g).g om .= v) a,o sa,
EZa,O - mQ0
EQWv) c.5 (U a, a,-r 2 €zg3
a, 2 E.2
3 a,%& - 9 ; .FO Es E;;;
J= of= a,.9=
a,u)
.-
et3
t C a,K
m.5 t E
.$Emu 2a,u)g
.- c r.9 3
.= a3
+s5m
-0- a,
S a,
I
- s
.- e
c a,
11 a,
m
E m
e!
m 3
m E
S 0
m rn
.- I
.- I .- E
S a, f
S 0
m
S a,
.- I
4-
- s - E"
U
c a, .-
L 5
.- I
5
:p
I m
3 -
irj,
6 .r cd,
IO
0
u"
.- %a I E .2
-a,
ul-