Loading...
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