HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-11-17; Planning Commission; Resolution 4677.c
!(
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
~
0 *
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4677
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO DEVELOP
A BUSINESS HOTEL LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF CANNON ROAD AND AVENIDA ENCINAS,
WITHIN THE CITY’S COASTAL ZONE, THE
COMMERCIALNISITOR-SERVING OVERLAY ZONE AND
IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 3.
CASE NAME: INNS OF AMERICA
CASE NO.: CUP 99-03/CDP 99-06
WHEREAS, Herrick Development Inc., “Developer”, has filed a verif
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Ray and Barbara Wint
“Owner”, described as
A portion of Lot H per Map 823, Rancho Agua Hedionda, as
recorded in the Office of the County Recorder, San Diego
County, State of California on May 1,1915. APN: 210-090-52
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with s;
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of November, 191
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimo
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, a
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all fact(
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planni
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 Plannj
Commission hereby RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the Negative Declarati
e 0 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
according to Exhibit "ND" dated October 14, 1999, and "PII" dated October
1999, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findinp:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration (for CUP !
03/CDP 99-06) the environmental impacts therein identified for this project i
any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the projt
and
b. the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and I
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City
Carlsbad; and
d. based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evider
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
...
. ..
...
...
. ..
...
...
I 11 PC RES0 NO. 4677 -2-
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
0 0
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planni:
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of November, 1999,
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, L’Heureux,
Nielsen, Segall, Trigas, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COURTNEY E. HEINEMAN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1) PC RES0 NO. 4677 -3-
.
-
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddresdLocation: Southeast comer of Cannon Road and Avenida Encinas. APN:
210-090-52
Project Description: 98 room business hotel proposed for the pre-graded, 2.7 acre site.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Planning Department.
; A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Eric Mmoz in the Planning Department at
(760) 438-1 161, extension 4441.
DATED: OCTOBER 14,1999
CASE NO: CUP 99-03/CDP 99-06
CASE NAME: INNS OF AMERICA
PUBLISH DATE: OCTOBER 14,1999
MICHAEL J. HMZMLER
Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-1 161 - FAX (760) 438-0894 4
e 0
ENWONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 ‘
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CUP 99-031CDP 99-06
DATE: 10/6/99
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Inns of America
2. APPLICANT: Herrick Development.
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 755 Raintree Drive, Suite 200, Carlsbad.
CA - (760) 43 1-6661
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Februarv 10,1999
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Business hotel consisting of 98 units.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
[3 Land Use and Planning TransportatiodCirculation c] Public Services
Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities LQ Service Systems
Geological Problems C7 Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics
n Water [7 Hazards
Air Quality ‘ nNoise
Cultural Resources
c] Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
@ 0
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
B I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared. n I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation .
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on .attached sheets. A Negative
Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier environmental review,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
E&. PIG, If - 13 18 177
Planner Signature 3 Date
I0 101% Planning Director%!Signakde Date
2 Rev. 03128196
I, e 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.
0 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 infomation
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.
0 “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).
0 When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily 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
Ovemding 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.
3 Rev. 03128196
0 0.
e 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 Ovemding 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 of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
4 Rev. 03128196
'. 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Source #1: EIR for General Plan Update 1994 (MEIR 93-01)
Source #2: Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 3
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 existmg land use in the vicinity?
(#l:Pgs.5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses? (#1 :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)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-)
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-)
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
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 groundshaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#1 :Pgs 5.1-1 -
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l: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 - 5.1.15)
5.1-15)
5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
g) Subsidence ofthe land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#I :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? (8l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
, b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
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)
11)
5
Potentially
Significant
Impact
17
0
0
0
cl
0
0 0 0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
CI
0
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
OB
Isi'
UK!
0 ,El
om
om
0 ow
0 ow
0 om 0 OH I7 Elm
0 om
0' 0 0 OB
0 UBI 0 ON 0 ON
0 om
0 DEI
0 UBI
Rev. 03128196
'. 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Source #1: EIR for General Plan Update 1994 (MEIR 93-01) Significant
Source #2: Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 3 Impact
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
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
body? (#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 0
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 0
rhough direct additions or withdrawals, or through 0
(#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 0'
11) 0
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs 17
5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
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.
a)
b)
+:
c)
d)
e)
f)
s)
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
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)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -
5.7.22)
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)
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 (e.g. heritage trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
(#l:PgS 5:4-1 - 5.4-24)
6
€a
0
0
[XI
0
0
0
0
17
0 Potentially Less Than KO
Significant Significant Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
UKI
0 UN ow
0 om
0 u[xI o[XI
0
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
no
UKI n[XI
OBI
on om
UIXI
ON uw
UN
ON
0. w
0 DEI
0 ON
Rev. 03/28/96
8.
1 0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially
Source #1: EIR for General Plan Update 1994 (MEIR 93-01) Significant Significant
Source #2: Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 3 Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
-
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) 0 0
- 5.4-24) 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)
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 -
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
5.10.1-5)
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
e) Increase fre hazard in areas with flammable brush,
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-
b) Exposure of people.to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9- 15)
1 - 5.9-15)
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:
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than No
Significant Impact impact
OH
OBI
OBI nw
OH
UIXI
ow
OB nw
LIB
urn
UB
El 0
0
(x1 IXI IXI rn ow
Rev. 03/28/96
l .. e e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Source #1: EIR for General Plan Update 1994 (MER 93-01) Significant
Source #2: Local Facilities Management Pian for Zone 3 Impact
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-
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) 0
7) 0
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) cl
0
5.12.3-7)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic hghway? (#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) .
5.11-1 - 5.11-5) 0'
5.11-1 - 5.11-5) 0.
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)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
10)
10) cl 0
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) 0
5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#1 :Pgs 5.12.8- 1 - 0
5.12.8-7,)
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
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
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?
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant impact
Mitigation Incorporated
Unless impact
0 ow
0 OB
0 UN
0
cl
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0
[x1 IXI
[x1 w
ow om
ON
OIX]
05
OH UN
ow
UKI
om
om
8 Rev. 03128196
\ ,I a e I Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Source #1: EIR for General Plan Update 1994 (MER 93-01) Significant
Source #2: Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 3 Impact
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“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
Potentially Less Than h’o Significant Significant impact
Mitigation
Incoruorated
Unless Impact
0~ OB
0 OB
9 Rev. 03/28/96
, I 0 0.
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
With the exception of the Master EIR analysis of the General Plan Update of 1994 for
citywide traffic and air quality impacts, no earlier analyses were conducted for this
project although the existing graded pad site is a result of the adjacent industrial office
subdivision and grading This is one of two remaining parcels (with P-M zoning) in the
immediate area.
10 Rev. 03128i96
1 e a
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This project is for the development of a business hotel consisting of 98 units at the southeast
comer of Cannon Road and Avenida Encinas. The hotel is designed to be a business hotel
featuring amenities for use by business travelers such as a mail center, conference/meeting room .
of 500 square feet, and in-room telecommunication amenities. The project also includes parking,
landscaping, swimming pool and pedestrian walkways.
The site is a 'previously graded pad which was done during the mass grading for the adjacent
industrial office subdivision. The uses adjacent to the site are as follows: Cannon Road to the
north; office building to the south; Avenida Encinas to the west; and Interstate 5 to the .east. The
area is located within the newly established CommercialNisitor-Serving Overlay Zone.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
1 a e
11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
Land Use and Planning
The site is zoned P-M (Planned Industrial) and a business hotel is an allowed use via the
approval of a conditional use permit. There will be no conflicts with applicable environmental
plans or policies that are under the jurisdiction of any resource or regulatory agency. The site is
pre-graded and disturbed with no habitat or agricultural uses present.
Population and Housing
The project will impact or affect population patterns, projections or affordable housing
provisions.
Geologic Problems
The site if free of any known or documented seismic, or geologic instabilities. No landslides,
faultlines or soils with expansive or unstable properties are found on-site.
Water
The project is designed to meet all applicable Engineering standards regarding drainage and
surface run-off. The development of the existing pad will impact groundwater flow or quality; or
change the flow of surface run-offi or impact public water supplies.
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 marked
12 Rev. 03/28/96
1 a 6 “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 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 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 fiom 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 thk project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
Biological Resources
The disturbed, previously graded site supports no significant habitats for sensitive plants or
animals. The proposed project will not impact biological resources.
Energy
The use and loss of mineral resources is not associated with this project; neither is the use of non-
renewable resources. Typical energy resources would be required for project construction.
13 Rev. 03/28/96
..
I 0 0 Hazards
The proposed business hotel will not increase the degree of risk resulting from an explosion or
releases of hazardous substances. Emergency and evacuation plans will not be impacted by the
project and no new fire hazards will result. Engineering and Fire Department of the project has
ensured that typical safety features and provisions are designed into the project.
Noise
The business hotel will not create new sources of noise in the area. Freeway noise will impact
the east elevation of the hotel but no noise standards will be violated. In addition, standard
building code compliance will reduce fieeway noise to insignificance for the hotel guests inside
the guest rooms.
Public ServicesAJtilities and Services Systems
All public and utility systems necessary for the long term operation of the proposed business
hotel will be available and supplied. This project will not impact the ability to deliver these
services.
Aesthetics
The project will not negatively impact the scenic qualities of Interstate 5 or Cannon Road. The
project has been designed architecturally to be visually pleasing without the creation of light or
glare.
Cultural Resources
The pre-graded pad does not contain any cultural resources.
Recreation
The pre-graded pad does not contain any recreational resources or opportunities.
14 Rev. 03/28/96
.
I' 0 0 111. 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 4447.
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. Local Facilities Management - Plan for Zone 3 per the City's Growth Management
Program, dated May 19, 1987, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
15 Rev. 03/28/96
I' 0 e. LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
none
q
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
none
16 Rev. 03128196
..
1 0 e
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
TRIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
z
Date Signature
17 Rev. 03128196