HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-09-01; Planning Commission; Resolution 56851
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. 5685
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND ADDENDUM AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT
OF A HOTEL/ TIMESHARE RESORT WITH 350 HOTEL
ROOMS AND 350 TIMESHARE UNITS ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CANNON
ROAD, EAST OF ARMADA DRIVE AND WEST OF
FARADAY AVENUE WITHIN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 13.
CASENAME: CARLSBAD RANCH PLANNING AREA 5-
RESORT SITE
CASE NO.: SP 207(E)/LCPA 90-08(D)/CT 03-02/SDP 03-02/
CDP 03-04/PUD 03-01/CUP 03-01/HDP 03-01
WHEREAS, Grand Pacific Resorts Inc., “Developer,” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Carlsbad Estate Holding,
Inc., “Owner,” described as
Boundary Parcel “A” of C.O.C. recorded March 9, 1998 as
Doc. #1998-125301 per City of Carlsbad Boundary Adjustment
Plat No. 498 and Lot 20 of Carlsbad Tract 94-09, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to Map thereof No. 13408, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County on April 1,1997
(“the property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with
said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 1st day of September 2004,
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 testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
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
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Exhibit
“MND,” according to Exhibits “NOI” dated May 21, 2004, and “PII” dated May
10,2004, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a.
b.
C.
d.
Conditions:
it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project, and any comments
thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines
and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
1. Developer shall implement or cause the implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program.
2. This approval is granted subject to the approval of SP 207(E)/LCPA W-OS@)/CT 03-02,
SDP 03-02, CDP 03-04, PUD 03-01, CUP 03-01 and HDP 03-01 and is subject to all
conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5693, 5692, 5686, 5687,
5688,5689,5690 and 5691 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference.
3. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold
harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and
representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims
and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the City arising, directly
or indirectly, from (a) City’s approval and issuance of this Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, (b)
City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-
discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein.
PC RES0 NO. 5685 -2-
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
Please ta e NOTICE 1
NOTICE
at the approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“feedexac tions .”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these feedexactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any feedexactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADO’PTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of September 2004, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez,
Heineman, Montgomery, and Segall
NOES:
ABSENT: . Commissioner Cardosa
ABSTAIN:
L/ FRANK H. WHI?TON, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLhkE LEM
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5685 -3-
CASE NAME:
CASE NO:
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Carlsbad Ranch Planning Area 5 - Resort Site
SP 207(E)/LCPA 90-08(D)/CT 03-02/SDP 03-02/CDP 03-04/PUD 03-01/CUP 03-01,’
PROJECT LOCATION: West side of Hidden Valley Road between Cannon Road and Palomar Airport Road
(APN 211-100-14)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed proiect is for a Specific Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment,
Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan. Coastal DeveloDment Permit, Planned Unit Development Permit, Conditional
Use Permit and Hillside Development Permit to allow for the development of a full service destination hoteI/timeshare resort.
The Carlsbad Ranch Planning Area 5 resort proiect is proposed to be a full service destination resort adjacent to the Legoland
California theme park. At buildout, the proiect will have a total of 350 hotel rooms and 350 timeshare units. There will be
two restaurants. meeting rooms and conference facilities for 2,000 occupants and recreational amenities including pools,
tennis courts and sports center.
The subiect site is a total of 56.52 acres which is currently in agricultural use. Land uses surrounding the subiect site include
open space, a water reservoir and the future Citv of Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course to the east, Cannon Road and agricultural
uses to the north. Legoland to the south, and a vacant property to the west.
Environmental impacts associated with implementation of the Planning Area 5 resort proiect have been previously evaluated
in the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Final Promam EIR 94-01, certified in 1995 bv the City of Carlsbad. This EIR included
various mitigation measures desi.gned to reduce potential adverse impacts associated with the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan
and related development including the development of Planning Area 5 as a resort. All mitication measures have been
incorporated into the overall proiect desim or will be included as conditions of approval.
DETERMINATION: 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, the initial study (EM Part 2) identified potentially significant
effects on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows:
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.
0 The proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at least one potentially
significant impact I) 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.
(Mitigated Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed).
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 (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and @)
have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, nothing further is required.
0
A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning
Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
ADOPTED: October 12. 2004, pursuant to City Council Resolution 2004-33 1
ATTEST: LZ
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLE~
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
August 18,2004 ADDENDUM
EIA FOR : SP 207(E)/LCPA 90-08@)/CT 03-02/SDP 03-02KDP 03-04/PUD 03-
Ol/CUP 03-01/HDP 03-01 - Carlsbad Ranch Planning Area 5 - Resort
Site
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15074.1 and Section 15073.5
addresses the circumstances under which substitution of mitigation measures in a
proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) can occur and when re-circulation of a
proposed MND is required. Pursuant to these sections, mitigation measures may be
substituted or added which will avoid or reduce the significant effect to at least the same
degree as, or to a greater degree than the original measure and will create no more
adverse effect of it’s own than would the original measure. No re-circulation of the
proposed MND is required when 1) Mitigation measures are replaced with equal or more
effective measures pursuant to Section 15074.1; 2) New project revisions are added in
response to written or verbal comments on’the project’s effects identified in the proposed
MND which are not new avoidable significant effects; 3) Measures or conditions of
project approval are added after circulation of the MND which are not required by
CEQA, which do not create new significant environmental effects and are not necessary
to mitigate an avoidable significant effect; and 4) New information is added to the MND
which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the MND.
This addendum is in response to a joint comment letter from USFWS and CDFG received
on June 21, 2004 which is attached for reference to this addendum. New information and
responses to the comment letter are included in the attached letter prepared by Merkel
and Associates and additional mitigation measures are included as follows:
Low-pressure sodium lamps should be used in any outdoor lighting fixtures adjacent
to the preserve. These lights should be directed away from the adjacent habitat and
used in conjunction with cut-off shields (fully shielded full cutoff lighting). Lighting
shall result in a predicted increase in illumination at the preserve boundary by no
more than 10% of the ambient levels.
The project boundary adjacent to the preserve area shall be fenced using a fence
designed to minimize accessibility of the open space by both people and domestic
animals. The fence selection shall be coordinated with the Wildlife Agencies and the
city to address barrier designs.
The project shall restrict the use of landscape materials on Lists A & B of the
California Invasive Plant Council’s list of “Exotic Pest Plants of Greatest Ecological
Concern in California as of October 1999”. In addition, proposed landscape plant
material palettes shall be reviewed by the City of Carlsbad and a qualified biologist to
ensure that materials to be used do not possess known invasive qualities.
Prior to any construction activities scheduled from February 15 through August 31,
the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a survey for nesting birds,
including northern harrier, within three days prior to the work in the area and ensure
that no nesting birds on-site, or gnatcatchers in the adjacent preserve area shall be
impacted by the project. If an active nest is identified, a buffer shall be established
between the construction activities and the nest. The buffer shall be a minimum
width of 300 feet (500 feet for raptors), shall be delineated by temporary fencing and
shall remain in effect as long as construction is occurring or until the nest is no longer
active.
5. The applicant shall retain a biological monitor to be present on-site during
construction and implementation of mitigation programs to ensure conservation
measures in the MND, resource agency permits, and construction documents are in
compliance with mi tigation measures.
6. The project should include the preparation of informational material and signage that
specifically addresses the requirements of development occupants. Materials should
be posted along the preserve fence and should also be provided as pamphlets made a
part of the disclosure documentation for all new occupants. Material shall be
developed and approved for use by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department in
coordination with Wildlife Agencies.
- City of Carlsbad
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: Carlsbad Ranch PlanninP Area 5 - Resort Site
CASE NO: CT 03-02/SDP 03-02/CDP 03-04/PUD 03-01/CUP 03-01/HDP 03-011
LCPA 90-08(D)/SP 207(E)
PROJECT LOCATION: West side of Hidden Vallev Road between Cannon Road and Palomar
Airport Road (APN 211-100-14)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project is for a Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan,
Coastal Development Permit, Planned Unit Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Hillside
Development Permit, Local Coastal Program Amendment and a Specific Plan Amendment to allow for the
development of a full service destination hotelhimeshare resort. The Carlsbad Ranch Planning Area 5 resort
project is proposed to be a full service destination resort adjacent to the Legoland California theme park. At
buildout, the project will have a total of 350 hotel rooms and 350 timeshare units. There will be two
restaurants, meeting rooms and conference facilities for 2,000 occupants and recreational amenities including
pools, tennis courts and sports center.
The subject site is a total of 56.52 acres which is currently in agricultural use. Land uses surrounding the
subject site include open space, a water reservoir and the future City of Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course to the
east, Cannon Road and agricultural uses to the north, Legoland to the south, and a vacant property to the west.
Environmental impacts associated with implementation of the Planning Area 5 resort project have been
previously evaluated in the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Final Program EIR 94-01, certified in 1995 by the
City of Carlsbad. This EIR included various mitigation measures designed to reduce potential adverse impacts
associated with the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan and related development including the development of
Planning Area 5 as a resort. All mitigation measures have been incorporated into the overall project design or
will be included as conditions of approval of the project.
PROPOSED DETERMINATION: 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, the initial
study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project
plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial
study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no
significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole
record before the City that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment.
Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad City
Council.
A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration are on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within
30 days of the date of this notice.
The proposed project and Wtigated Negative Declaration are subject to review and approvaVadoption by the
City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional public notices will be issued when those
public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Saima Qureshy in the Planning
Department at (760) 602-4619.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD
PUBLISH DATE MAY 21,2004
MAY 2 1,2004 TO JUNE 2 1,2004
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us January 30,2003
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: SP 207(E)/LCPA 90-08(D)/CT 03-02/SDP 03-02/CDP 03-04PUD 03-01/CUP 03-01/HDP 03-01
DATE: May 10,2004
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
CASE NAME: Carlsbad Ranch Planning Area 5 - Resort Site
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad,
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Saima Qureshy - (760) 602-4619
PROJECT LOCATION: West side of Hidden Valley Road between Cannon Road and Palomar
Airport Road (APN 21 1-100-14)
PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: Timothy Stripe, 5900 Pasteur Court, Suite
200, Carlsbad. CA 92008
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: T-R (Travel/ Recreation Commercial)
ZONING: C-T-O (Commercial-Tourist/ Oualified Development Overlay Zone)
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (Le., permits, financing
approval or participation agreements): California Coastal Commission
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
Reauest for approval of a Specific Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Tentative Tract
Map, Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit, Non-Residential Planned Development
Permit, Conditional Use Permit and Hillside Development Permit for the development of a full service
hotel/timeshare resort. At buildout, the proiect will have a total of 350 hotel rooms and 350 timeshare
units. There will be two restaurants, meeting rooms and conference facilities for 2,000 occupants, and
recreational amenities including pools. tennis courts and a sports center.
The subiect site is located on the south side of Cannon Road, east of Armada Drive and west of Faraday
Avenue. Land uses surrounding the subiect site include open space, a water reservoir and the future City
of Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course to the east, agricultural uses to the west and north and Legoland to the
south. Environmental impacts for the proposed proiect have been previously analvzed in the Carlsbad
Ranch Specific Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR 94-01, SCH #9505 1001). Impacts
will not be different than those already anticipated by the Program EIR. Mitigation measures from this
previous EIR have been incorporated into the proposed proiect where applicable and are listed at the back
of this EM.
I Rev. 07/03/02
ENVIRONMESTAL 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.
0 Aesthetics 0 Geology/Soils [XI Noise
0 Agricultural Resources 0 HazarddHazardous Materials 0 and Housing
[XI Air Quality 0 HydrologyNater Quality 0 Public Services
0 Biological Resources 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Recreation
[XI Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources TransportatiodCirculation
0 Utilities & Service Systems 0 Mandatory Findings of
Significance
2 Rev. 07/03/02
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0
IXI
0
0
/
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
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 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment. and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment. but at
least one potentially significant impact 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.
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 (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
1 rm lW ( _\JhU. w 5 I IC I c,ci e-
Planner Signature Date
3 Rev. 07/03/02
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 Lvith 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.
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” ansa.er 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.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not
significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
“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.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly
adverse.
Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the
environment, but &l potentially significant adverse 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.
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR
if the significant adverse 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.
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 adverse effect on the environment.
If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there
are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse 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.
4 Rev. 07/03/02
0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked. and including but not limited to
the following circumstances: ( 1 ) the potentially significant adverse 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 adverse impact to less than significant: (2) a “Statement of Overriding
Considerations” for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR: (3)
proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse 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 belo\v 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.
5 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Substantially damage scenic resources, including but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings. and historic
buildings within a State scenic highway?
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
Create a new source of substantial light and glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
11. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model- 1997 prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would
the project:
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract?
Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
111. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied
upon to make the following determinations.) Would the
project:
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation'?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Inipact
0 0 BO
0 0 BO
0 0 IXIO
0 0
0 0
OH
OH
0 0 OH
0 IXI 00
6 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations'?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian,
aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations or by California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filing, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
Impact tributary areas that are environmentally
sensitive'?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Mitigation Sipnificanr ho
Incorporated Impact Impact
Unless Less Than
0 1xio
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IXIO
0K.I
7 Rev. Q7IQ3102
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi-
cance of an archeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique pale
ontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
1.
11.
... 111.
1v.
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology. Special
Publication 42.
Strong seismic ground shaking?
Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,
or collapse'?
d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
Unless Less Than
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
no
om
om
om
IXIO
IXIO
om
OBI
om
8 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -
Would the project:
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Create a significant hazard to the public or
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
environment?
For a project within an airport land use plan, or
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan'?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands'?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project :
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
Potentially Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
o
Potentially Significant
Lnless
Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
17
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
[XI
0
0
0
h0
Impact
IXI
[XI
[XI
Ix1
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
OIXI
9 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with ground water recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local ground water table
level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
Impacts to groundwater quality?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site'?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in
a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
Create or contribute runoff water, which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff!
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation
map?
Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures,
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam'?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface
waters.
Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals,
pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics,
nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash)
into receiving surface waters or other alteration of
receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
10
Potentially
Sign i ficanl
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
Unless Less Than
0 UISI
0 ow
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IXIO
0151
IXIO
0 '151
0151
0151
[XI0
1510
Rev. 07103l02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Less Than Potentially Unless
Significant Mitigation Signiticant
Impact Incorporated Impact 1
0 lsi
17 El El
KO
Impact
0
n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or
wetland waters) during or following construction'?
0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired
water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section
303(d) list'?
p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater
receiving water quality objectives or degradation of
beneficial uses?
17 la
IX.
X.
XI.
LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 0
0
ON 0
0 b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
0 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan? 17E.I
MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
0 0 a) 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'?
0 0 b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
NOISE - Would the project result in:
0 0 a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels
in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of
other agencies?
NU
o b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise
levels'?
0 c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
17 NO d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
0
11 Rev. 07/03/02
'Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Ixi
Potentially Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
1 nipac t
NO
Impact
0 0 0 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
0 0 0
XII. POPULATIOR' AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
0 0 0 IXI
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
0 0 0 IXI
IXI c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere'? 0 0 0
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered government facilities, a
need for new or physically altered government
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
0
cl
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ixl
Ixl
IXI
IXI
IXI
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
0
0
0
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks'?
v) Other public facilities'?
XIV. RECREATION
0 IXI a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
0 0
12 Rev. 07103102
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities. which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment:'
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)'?
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads
or highways'?
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)'?
Result in inadequate emergency access?
Result in insufficient parking capacity?
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus tum-
outs, bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the
project:
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which would
cause significant environmental effects?
Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Sign i ti cant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0
ISI
[x1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ho
1 nipact
El
0
0
Ix1
IXI
Ixl
IXI
IXI
Ixl
IXI
IXI
IXI
13 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentiall?
Significant Potentially Lnless Less Than
Significant Mitigation significant ho
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
0 cl OH e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments’?
0 0 OH 0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs‘?
0 0 om g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
0 a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
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’?
0 0 €an b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumula- .
tively 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?)
Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
0 0 IxIn c)
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may ‘be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or
more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,”
describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document
and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
14 Rev. 07/03/02
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTIOR’
The proposed project is for a Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Plan. Coastal De\.elopment Permit. Planned
Unit Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit. Hillside Development Permit. Local Coastal Program
Amendment and a Specific Plan Amendment to allow for the development of a full service destination
hotel/timeshare resort. The Carlsbad Ranch Planning Area 5 resort project is proposed to be a full service
destination resort adjacent to the Legoland California theme park. At buildout. the project \vi11 have a total of 350
hotel rooms and 350 timeshare units. There will be two restaurants, meeting rooms and conference facilities for
2000 seats, recreational amenities including pools, tennis courts and sports center.
The subject site is a total of 56.52 acres which is currently in agricultural use. Land uses surrounding the subject site
include open space, a water reservoir and the future City of Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course to the east. Cannon
Road and agricultural uses to the north, Legoland to the south, and a vacant property to the west.
Environmental impacts associated with implementation of the Planning Area 5 resort project have been previously
evaluated in the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Final Program EIR 94-01, certified in 1995 by the City of Carlsbad.
This EIR included various mitigation measures designed to reduce potential adverse impacts associated with the
Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan and related development including the development of Planning Area 5 as a resort.
All mitigation measures have been incorporated into the overall project design.
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less Than Significant Impact. The subject site is located along Cannon Road which is designated as “Community
Scenic Corridor” in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Design features incorporated into the project to
reduce adverse aesthetic impacts include contour grading, landscaping and architectural detail to soften the visual
effects and to enhance the visual character of the project. Incorporation of these design features will substantially
reduce the project visual effects to a level considered less than significant.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
No Impact (b&c) - The proposed project will cause changes in visual character in that the current use of the subject
site is agriculture which will change to a developed site. The overall project design seeks to enhance the visual
character of the area through implementation of a consistent architectural and design theme which will enhance and
connect the project with surrounding land uses. Features incorporated into the project to reduce adverse aesthetic
impacts include contour grading, substantial landscaping and architectural detail to soften the visual effects and to
enhance the visual character of the project. Incorporation of these design features will enhance the visual character
and quality of the project area.
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will result in the introduction of new sources of light and
glare into the project area. However impacts involving the creation of light or glare would be less than significant as
there are no existing land uses that would be significantly or adversely be affected by project lighting or glare.
11. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farnlland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
15 Rev. 07/03/02
Less Than Significant Impact. The conversion of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-
agricultural use was addressed by the previously ,certified Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Final Program EIR.
Mitigation measures are not proposed as impacts have been reduced to a level less than significant through the
payment of fees consistent with the City’s Local Coastal Program and implementation of policies in the Carlsbad
Ranch Specific Plan.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
No Impact (b&c). The proposed project will not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use. The Carlsbad
Ranch Specific Plan requested an early cancellation of Williamson Act contracts, which was approved as a part of
the original approval for the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan and Final Program EIR 94-0 1.
111. AIR QUALITY-Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non-attainment area
for ozone (03), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter
(PM,,,). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin
(SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution
controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is
embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District
(APCD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG).
A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state-
mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-attainment areas having
serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by
the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly
regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996.
The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are
incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city’s and the
County’s general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the’project
presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that
the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact.
Section 15 125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific
reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality
management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set
forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California
Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms to the RAQS which include the
following:
0 Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area?
Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan?
The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being
implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions of the City’s General Plan, Carlsbad Ranch
Specific Plan and the RAQS. Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no
way conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
Potentially Significant unless Mitigation Incorporated. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project
site is in the City of Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most
recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and 2001)
16 Rev. 07/03/02
and one day in 2001 for the federal 8-hour average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour state standard for
suspended particulates in 1996. No violations of any other air quality standards have been recorded recently. The
project would involve minimal short-term emissions associated with grading and construction. Such enissions would be minimized through standard construction measures such as the use of properly tuned equipment and
watering the site for dust control. The proposed project will generate long-term emissions as a result of additional
vehicular traffic associated with travel to and from the project site. All air pollutant emissions analyzed bj, the
Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Final Program EIR are considered significant prior to implementation of mitigation
measures at build out of the proposed project. Throughout the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Final Program EIR 94-
01, general mitigation measures for air quality are listed. Mitigation measures are incorporated in the project design
and are also included in the MMRP. Although air pollutant emissions would be associated with the project. they
would neither result in the violation of any air quality standard (comprising only an incremental contribution to
overall air basin quality readings), nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine
particulates. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net
increase in emissions throughout the air basin. It was concluded in the analysis for the Final Program EIR 94-01
that the development anticipated under the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan together with the development of other
related projects will have a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact on the region's air quality. A statement
of overriding considerations was adopted for this cumulative impact. (EIR section 5.2).
'
4 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is consistent with the approved Carlsbad Ranch Specific
Plan. The proposed project will generate additional vehicular traffic and an increase in vehicle pollutant
concentrations. However, there are no sensitive receptors in the vicinity. Therefore impacts involving the exposure
of sensitive receptors to pollutants will not be greater than those already anticipated by the Final Program
Environmental Impact Report for the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan (EIR 94-01). Any impact is assessed as less
than significant.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
No Impact. The construction of the proposed project could generate fumes from the operation of construction
equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure would be short-term or
transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not considered substantial.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
A Biological Survey and Report was prepared for the proposed project by Merkel & Associated, Inc. in January
2003. The report was based upon surveys of the site conducted in September and October 2002. The report
identifies four plant communities on the 56.52 acre site. Impacts to 41.23 acres of agriculture and 8.13 acres of
disturbed habitat will not be considered significant. The project will have no direct impacts on 0.16 acres of Diegan
Coastal Sage Scrub, located along the northeastern property boundary. Impacts to 1.98 acres of Non-native
grassland will require mitigation at a 0.5: 1 ratio or by paying a mitigation in-lieu fee to the City.
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than significant impact. A Biological Survey conducted on the proposed project site by Merkel & Associates,
Inc. on September 24, 2002 stated that, as proposed the project will impact 1.98 acres of non-native grassland. This
impact can be mitigated by payment of a mitigation in-lieu fee to the City of Carlsbad pursuant to the proposed
Habitat Management Plan.
17 Rev. 07/03/02
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies. or regulations or by California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less Than Significant Impact. No aquatic or wetland habitat is present on the site. No habitat under the
jurisdiction of the US. Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Game. or the Regional Water
Quality Control Board would be impacted. The development of the project would result in the loss of raptor
foraging habitat. However a significant amount of natural habitat occurs in the IO-acre hardline preserve to the east.
thus sensitive species will not be affected.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact.
occur on site.
The proposed project is consistent with the approved Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan and no wetlands
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is consistent with the approved Carlsbad Ranch Specific
Plan. Therefore any impacts to the movement of native resident or migratory wildlife species or with established
native resident or migratory corridors will not be greater than those already anticipated by the previously certified
Program EIR for the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan (EIR 94-01). According to the Biology Report, prepared for this
project, there are.no wildlife corridors or habitat linkages on the site. The 0.16 acre of coastal sage preserved on-site
is contiguous with habitat to the east. Overall the property is used for agriculture and has only a small amount of
habitat on-site.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
0 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive?
No Impact (e-g) - The eastern boundary of the site borders natural open space that is part of an existing hardline
conservation area for the Carlsbad HMP. This off-site open space consists primarily of Diegan coastal sage scrub'
habitat. The proposed project is consistent with the approved Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan and Program EIR 94-01
and therefore will not conflict with any HCP, NCCP or other approved habitat conservation plan,or local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources.
No aquatic or wetland habitat is present on or immediately adjacent to the site. No habitat under the jurisdiction of
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Game, or the Regional Water Quality Control
Board would be impacted.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
No Impact. A previously recorded archeological site is located within the project boundary. The mitigation
measures as identified in a report prepared by Gallegos & Associates in April 2004, are incorporated in the project
design and are included as conditions of approval. Therefore any impacts to the significance of a historical resource
as identified in Q 15064.5 will be reduced to a level less than significant and will be mitigated where applicable based
on recommendations of the archeological report and data recovery.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to
$1 5064.5?
18 Rev. 07/03/02
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Amendment Final
Program EIR 94-01 identified site CA-SDI-8797, which is located partially on the project site. as
significanv'important under City of Carlsbad and CEQA criteria. Per the Program EIR 94-01, a part of this site \vas
to be placed in open space and capped. However the site design is such that about 5,000 square feet of this area \\.ill
have to be mitigated through data recovery. A data recovery plan for the site was prepared by Gallegos gL
Associates in April 2003. The data recovery plan states that mitigation of impacts can be achieved through
avoidance, capping or through completion of a data recovery program. A portion of the site will be set-aside as an
open space reflectiow'view area. This area will contain only native plants. will be assisted in design by Native
American representatives and will be posted with a. plaque discussing Native American history. Waterlines and
other utilities will be placed outside of the open space easement or within the fill soil to avoid impacts to cultural
resources, The remaining portion of the site cannot be avoided and thus mitigation of impacts will be achieved
through the completion of a data recovery program.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
4 Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
No Impact (c & d) - The proposed project is consistent with the approved Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan and the
Program EIR 94-01. There will be no impacts to unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features. The
site is currently used as agriculture. There will be no impacts to human remains including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries. Therefore impacts will not be greater than those already anticipated by the Environmental
Impact Report for the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan (EIR 94-01).
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury
or death involving:
1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
No Impact. Ground rupture generally is considered to occur along pre-existing fault strands. Since no active faults
have been mapped on the site or in the vicinity of the project site, ground rupture on-site is considered unlikely.
Therefore there will be no impacts involving ground rupture.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less Than Significant Impact (aii-aiii.) - There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zones within the City of
Carlsbad and there is no other evidence of active or potentially active faults within the City. However there are
several active faults throughout Southern California, and these potential earthquakes could affect Carlsbad. The
project site is located in an area of stable soil conditions and the risk of seimic-realted ground failure or liquefaction
is very minimal (according to City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November
1992). In addition a project specific Geologic Reconnaissance was prepared by Leighton and Associates dated
November 29, 2001. The report sates that the potential for liquefaction, earthquake induced settlement and lateral
spread are considered to be low for the site because of the low susceptibility to liquefaction.
iv. Landslides?
No Impact. The proposed project is consistent with the approved Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan and the site is not at
risk for landslides. Therefore impacts involving landslides will not be greater than those already anticipated by the
Environmental Impact Report for the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan (EIR 94-01).
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
19 Rev. 07/03/02
No Impact. The proposed project is consistent with the approved Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. Therefore impacts
involving substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil will not be greater than those already anticipated b!. the
Environmental Impact Report for the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan (EIR 94-01).
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide. lateral spreading. subsidence. liquefaction.
or collapse?
No Impact. The proposed project is consistent with the approved Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. Therefore impacts
involving unstable geologic unit or soil will not be greater than those already anticipated by the Program
Environmental Impact Report for the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan (EIR 94-01).
d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - l-B of the Uniform Building Code (1991).
creating substantial risks to life or property?
No Impact. The proposed project is consistent with the approved Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. Therefore impacts
involving expansive soils will not be greater than those already anticipated by the Program Environmental Impact
Report for the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan (EIR 94-01).
e) Have soils incapable of adequately 'supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No Impact. The proposed project does not propose septic tanks and will use public sewer system. Therefore there
will be no impacts involving soils that support the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS-Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public
or environment?
No Impact (a-d). Based on the nature of the land use, there is no routine transport or use of disposal of hazardous
materials associated with hotelhimeshare resort and other associated uses proposed. Therefore, there is no potential
of a significant hazard associated with the project from accidents involving the release of hazardous materials into
the environment, or from the emission of hazardous substances within the proximity of a school.
e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the McClellan-Palomar Airport Influence Area.
The influence area encompasses those areas adjacent to airports which could be impaired by noise levels exceeding
the California State Noise Standards or where height restrictions would be needed to prevent obstructions to
navigate airspace as outlined in Federal Aviation Administration regulations. The proposed project lies within the
60-65 CNEL contours of the airport. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan McClellan-Palomar Airport developed by
SANDAG dated April 1994 states that CNEL levels of 60 - 70 are conditionally compatible for Hotels. Thus the
proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
20 Rev. 07/03/02
No Impact. The proposed project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip and therefore \vi11 not result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires,
including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with
wild lands?
No Impact (g-h). The project will not impair the implementation or physically interfere with any adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation since the project site is surrounded by urban development which
is adequately served by emergency services.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY-Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
No Impact. The applicant is required to comply with Order 2001-02 issued by the Regional Water Quality Control
Board. A preliminary Storm Water Management Plan for the project was prepared by Excel Engineering to address
existing and proposed pollutants of concern and what measures will be implemented to ensure that pollutant loads
are not increased as a result of this project, to the maximum extent practicable.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground mater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table
level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
No Impact. The project does not propose to directly draw any groundwater for potable or irrigation use. The
project will be served via existing public water distribution lines adjacent to the site.
c) Impacts to groundwater quality?
No Impact. This project is required to implement measures to reduce urban pollutants prior to discharge, thus
groundwater quality will not be affected by this project.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site?
No Impact. The proposed project does not propose to alter existing drainage patterns, nor any stream or river that
would result in erosion or siltation on or offsite.
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of
surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will change land use of the site from agriculture to a
hotelhimeshare resort. The developed site will have a drainage pattern different from the existing use. The project
is required to comply with Order 2001-02 of Regional Water Quality Control Board.
0 Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm
water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
No Impact. The existing storm drain system will adequately convey runoff from the subject site. Since this project
maintains peak runoff to predevelopment flows, there is no additional impact to consider. Compliance with NPDES
requirements ensure that the off-site flow does not increase pollutant discharges.
g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
21 Rev. 07/03/02
Less Than Significant Impact. As a result of the project 1) Implementing source BMP measures to avoid pollutant
contact and: 2) Installing treatment BMP measures to remove pollutants from storm water, the proposed project is
not anticipated to contribute additional pollutants, to the maximum extent practicable.
h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary
or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map?
No Impact. The proposed project is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map. Therefore there \vi11 be no impacts
regarding flooding.
i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact. The proposed project would not place structures within 100-year flood hazard areas. Therefore there
will be no impacts from flooding.
j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Impact (j & k) - According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study,
November 1992, the project site is not located within any dam failure inundation, or area subject to inundation by
seiche or tsumani.
1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters?
m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic
organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other
alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g.. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following
construction?
0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section
303(d) list?
P) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or
degradation of beneficial uses?
Less Than Significant Impact (I, m, n, o & p) - The project is not located immediately adjacent to any body of
water. The project is within a watershed that ultimately drains to Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Agua Hedionda Lagoon
is not listed as an impaired water body per the 303(d) list adopted February 4, 2003. The project will be required to
comply with Order 2001-01 and the Storm Water Management Plan for this project. Drainage and development will
be controlled via best management practices to ensure that pollutant loads are not increased to the maximum extent
practicable. Therefore, the project will not adversely impact water quality.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or
zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c)
No Impact (a-c) - The project site is surrounded by development on three sides, including Cannon Road to the
north, LEGOLAND to the south and a vacant lot to the west. The proposed resort development of the site will be
compatible with and will integrate into the existing community. The project is consistent with the property’s
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
22 Rev. 07/03/02
General Plan designation of Travel/ Recreation Commercial (TR), with the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan and with
the Final Program EIR 94-01.
The eastern boundary of the site borders natural open space that is part of an existing hardline consenation area for
the Carlsbad HMP. This off-site open space consists primarily of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub habitat. The proposed
project is consistent with the approved Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan and therefore will not conflict \\,it11 the
applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
x. MINERAL RESOURCES
No Impact. There are no known mineral resources, of local importance or otherwise, on the project site. Therefore,
the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of such resources.
XI. NOISE
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less than significant impact. An Acoustical Analysis report was prepared for the proposed project by Acoustech
Consultants in December 2002. The report indicates that the principal noise source impacting the southern portion
of the site is the McClellan-Palomar Airport, with additional noise contribution from Palomar Airport Road. The
project site will be subject to exterior noise levels of up to 66 dE3 CNEL in the southern portion of the project site.
The principal noise source impacting the northern portion of the site is traffic noise due to Cannon Road. Future
noise levels from Cannon Road are predicted to be as high as 66.7 dB CNEL at facades facing the roadway.
No special building construction is required to achieve interior noise levels of 45 dB CNEL, with the exception that
single glazed windows need to be closed. Typical building construction provides approximately 10-1 5 dB noise
reduction with windows open and 25-30 dB with closed windows. Mechanical ventilation and air-conditioning is
included as part of project design.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise
levels?
No Impact. Based upon the nature of the proposed hotelltimeshare use, the project will not result in any activity
that would generate excessive groudbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels. In addition, the project site is
not located adjacent to any use that generates excessive groundbourne vibrations or groudbourne noise levels.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
4 A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
Less Than Significant Impact (c & d) - Other than traffic generated noise, typical hotelhimeshare land use does
not generate a substantial amount of noise. With regard to temporary or periodic increase in noise levels, the only
potential increase in noise would be from construction activity associated with the development of the project. The
City incorporates standard regulations on all project construction activity to ensure that noise and other potential
impacts to surrounding properties are not significant. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in a substantial
permanent or temporary increase in ambient noise level in the project vicinity.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is located within the McClellan-Palomar
Airport Influence Area. The influence area encompasses those areas adjacent to airports which could be impaired
by noise level exceeding the California State Noise Standards or where height restrictions would be needed to
prevent obstructions to navigable airspace as outlined in Federal Aviation Administration regulations. The proposed
project lies within the 60-65 db CNEL contours of the airport. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan-
23 Rev. 07/03/02
.Palomar Airport developed by SANDAG dated April 1994 states that db CNEL levels of 60-70 are conditionally
compatible for hotels and the outdoor noise levels are acceptable for associated outdoor activities.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. The proposed project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip and therefore \vi11 not expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
No Impact (a-c). The project would result in the development of a hotel and timeshare units surrounded by other
commercial development therefore. the project would not induce substantial growth either directly or indirectly.
The project is proposed on a vacant lot and would not displace any existing housing or individuals.
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
No Impact. The proposed project is located in Zone 13 of Local Facilities Management Plan. The provision of
public facilities within the Zone 13 LFMP, including fire & police protection, parks, libraries and other public
facilities, have been planned to accommodate the projected growth in that area. Because the project will not exceed
the total growth projections anticipated within the Zone 13 LFMP, all public facilities will be adequate to serve the
proposed development on the site. Therefore, the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts to or result in
the need for additional government facilities.
XIV. RECREATION
No Impact (a and b). The proposed project is in Park District 1 NW quad. Since the area is non residential there is
limited demand for recreational facilities. The project will be assed a fee of $00.40 a square foot according to City
guidelines to mitigate for the use of recreational facilities by employees and visitors. The project does not increase
the use of existing neighborhood and regional facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated. Nor does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity
of the street system?
Less Than Significant Impact. A traffic analysis was conducted for the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan EIR in
August 1994, and a Congestion Management Plan was prepared in May 1995. Urban Systems developed a trip
generation chart in 2003 specifically for the hotelhimeshare project. The project is estimated to generate 7,167
ADT.
I I The project is served by Cannon Road and Palomar Airport Road. While the increase in traffic from the proposed
project may be slightly noticeable, the street system has been designed and sized to accommodate traffic from the
24 Rev. 07/03/02
project and cumulative development in the City of Carlsbad. The proposed project would not cause an increase in
traffic that is substantial in relation to existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The impacts from the
proposed project are, therefore. less than significant.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively. a level of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
Less Than Significant Impact. This project does not exceed a level of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. The proposed project is in conformance with the
approved layout of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. Therefore impacts involving level of service will not be
greater than those already anticipated by the Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Carlsbad Ranch
Specific Plan (EIR 94-01).
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change
in location that results in substantial safety risks?
No Impact. Although the project lies within the McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Plan it does not include any
aviation components. Therefore it will not result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety
risks.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses?
No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards; and, therefore.
would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan, Zoning
Ordinance and Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police
Departments.
0 Result in inadequate parking capacity?
No Impact. Parking for the hotelltimeshare project and accessory uses is adequate and meets all City of Carlsbad
standards.
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)?
No Impact. The proposed project does not conflict with adopted.policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS-Would the project:
No Impact (a-g) - The proposed project development will be required to comply with all Regional Water Quality
Control Board Requirements. In addition, the Zone 13 LFMP anticipated that the project site would be developed
with a hotelltimeshare project thus wastewater treatment facilities were planned and designed to accommodate
future commercial and tourist uses on the site. All public facilities, including water facilities, wastewater facilities,
wastewater treatment facilities and drainage facilities, have been planned and designed to accommodate the growth
projections for the City at build-out. The proposed project will increase the demand for theses facilities. However,
the proposed project would not result in an overall increase in the City’s growth projection. Therefore, the project
will not result in development that will result in a significant need to expand or construct new water
facilities/supplies, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage facilities.
Existing waste disposal services are adequate to serve the proposed commercial uses on site without exceeding
landfill capacity. In addition, the proposed commercial development will be required to comply with all federal,
state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste.
25 Rev. 07103102
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. substantially reduce
the habitat of fish or wildlife species. cause 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 or
rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California or prehistory?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not degrade the quality of the environnient. The project
site does not contain any fish or wildlife species. Therefore, the project will not reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species.
The proposed project is consistent with previously approved Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan and Final Program EIR
94-01. The proposed project may have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. Any potential
impacts to the quality of the environment will not be greater than those already anticipated by EIR 94-01.
Mitigation measures from the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Program EIR 94-01 will be implemented to reduce any
impacts to less than significant.
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?)
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is in conformance with the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan and
Program EIR 94-01. The proposed project has impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.
Impacts that are cumulatively considerable will not be greater than those already anticipated and mitigated through
mitigation measures, contained in Final Program EIR 94-01.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional growth for the greater San Diego area, and
local general plan land use policies are incorporated into SANDAG projections. Based upon those projections,
region-wide standards, including storm water quality control, air quality standards, habitat conservation, congestion
management standards, etc., are established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the region. All of
the City’s development standards and regulations are consistent with the region wide standards. The City’s
standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage standard, traffic standards, habitat
and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that development within the City
will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact.
There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a cumulatively
considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. As described above, the project would
contribute to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described
above, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the development is implemented.
The County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino
Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system.
The CMA had determined, based on the City’s growth projections in the General Plan, that these designated
roadways will function at acceptable levels of service in the short-term and at build-out. The project is consistent
with the City’s growth projections, and therefore, the cumulative impacts from the project to the regional circulation
system are less than significant.
With regard to any other potential impacts associated with the project, City standards and regulations will ensure
that development of the site will not result in any significant cumulatively considerable impacts.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact. Based upon the commercial nature of the project and the fact that future
development of the site will comply with all City standards, the project will not result in any direct or indirect
substantial adverse environmental effects on human beings. However the project site is located in an area where
humans beings could be exposed to hgh noise levels generated from McClellan-Palomar Airport. As discussed
above, any potential impact from noise can be mitigated to a level less than significant. Mitigation measures will be
26 Rev. 07/03/02
incorporated as conditions of project approval. Any future commercial development on the site will be required to
comply will all applicable federal. state. regional and City regulations. which nil1 ensure the de\.elopment of the sltt
\vi11 not result in an adverse impact on human beings. either directly or indirectly.
EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTIKG INFORMATION SOURCES
The following documents were used in the analysis of ths project and are on file in the. City of Carlsbad Planning
Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carisbad, California, 92008.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Citv of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analvsis and Mauuine Study, November, 1992.
Citv of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad. December.
1999.
Cultural Resource Date Recoverv Plan For the Grand Pacific Resorts Site CA-SDI-8797 Locus A Citv of
Carlsbad, California, Gallegos & Associates, April, 2003.
Carlsbad Ranch Plannine Area 5 Biological Survey, Merkel & Associates, January 10, 2003.
Comurehensive Land Use Plan McClellan-Palomar Airport Carlsbad, California, SANDAG, April, 1994.
Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan Amendment Final Program Environmental Imuact Report, EIR 94-01, City
of Carlsbad, November, 1995
Planning Area 5 Resort Triu Generation, Urban Systems, January 28, 2003.
Acoustical Analysis Report for Carlsbad Ranch Planninp: Area 5 Leeoland Resort & Hotel Tentative Man
Acoustech Consultants, December 2,2002.
27 Rev. 07/03/02
LIST OF hIITIGATING hIEASZ1RES
AIR OUALITY:
1. Use of energy-efficient low-sodium parking lot lights.
2. Use of synchronization of traffic lights on streets impacted by development.
3. Scheduling of truck deliveries and pickups for off-peak hours.
4. Construction of bus turnouts, passenger benches, or shelters as deemed necessary by NCTD.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:
5. Low-pressure sodium lamps should be used in any outdoor lighting fixtures adjacent to the preserve. These
lights should be directed away from the adjacent habitat and used in conjunction with cut-off shields (fully
shieldedi full cutoff lighting).
6. The boundary of the site that abuts the preserve area should be fenced to discourage trespassing.
7. Use native plants where feasible for landscaping especially along the eastern boundary to prevent invasion
of exotics into sensitive habitat. Avoid the use of invasive landscaping plants including Pampas grass and
Hottentot-Fig (Carpobrotus spp.)
CULTURAL RESOURCES :
8. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide written evidence that a certified
archaeologist has been retained, shall be present at the pre grading conference, shall establish
procedures for archaeological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project
proponent, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling,
identification, and evaluation of artifacts as appropriate. If additional or unexpected archaeological
features are discovered, the archaeologist shall report such findings to the applicant and to the City. If
the archaeological resources are found to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine
appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant for exploration andlor salvage. These actions, as
well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the review of the City.
9. The applicant shall place 5,000 square feet of site CA-SDI-8797, as identified on project plans, in an
open space easement and capped. The capping will be one inch of clean sand and a minimum of 12-
inches of clean fill. Water lines and other utilities will need to be placed outside the open space
easement or within the fill soil. Ths area as well as the adjacent slope shall contain only native plants,
shall be assisted in design by the Native American representative and shall be posted with a plaque
discussing Native American history.
10. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a data recovery program shall be completed for CA-SDI-8797.
The data recovery program shall be campleted in compliance with the City of Carlsbad “Cultural
Resources Guidelines” and with Data Recovery Plan prepared by Gallegos. 22 Associates, April, 2003.
11. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the developer shall present a letter to the City of Carlsbad
indicating that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to carry out an appropriate mitigation
program. (A qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual with a MS or Ph.D. in paleontology or
geology who is familiar with paleontological procedures and techniques.
A qualified paleontologist shall be present at the pre-construction meeting to consult with the
grading and excavation contractors.
A paleontological monitor shall be on-site at all times during the original cutting of previously
undistributed sediments of the Santiago Formation to inspect cuts for contained fossils. Periodic
inspections of cuts involving the Lindavista Formation is also recommended. In the event that
fossils are discovered in the Lindavista Formation it may be necessary to increase the perlday in
field monitoring time. Conversely, if fossils are not being found then the monitoring should be
reduced. (A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has experience in the
28 Rev. 07/03/02
collection and salvage of fossil materials. The paleontological monitor shall Lvork under the
direction of a qualified paleontologist.)
When fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall recover them.
In most cases this fossil salvage can be completed in a short period of time. However. some fossil
specimens (such as a complete large mammal skeleton) may require an extended salvage period.
In these instances the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall be allo\ved to temporarily
direct. divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely manner. Because of
the potential for the recovering of small fossil remains. such as isolated mammal teeth. it may be
necessary in certain instances, to set up a screen-washing operation on the site.
Fossil remains collected during the monitoring and salvage portion of the nlitigation program shall
be cleaned, repaired, sorted, and cataloged.
0 Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos. and maps, shall be
deposited (as a donation) in a scientific institution with permanent paleontological collections such
as the San Diego Natural History Museum. Donations of the fossils shall be accompanied by
financial support for initial specimen storage.
A final summary report shall be completed that outlines the results of the mitigation program.
This report shall include discussions of the methods used, stratigraphic sections(s) exposed, fossils
collected, and significance of recovered fossils.
12. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide an updated and detailed acoustical
analysis to show compliance with interior noise level of 45dB CNEL.
29 Rev. 07/03/02
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.
30 Rev. 07/03/02
I
PROJECT NAME: CARLSBAD RANCH PLANING AREA 5 - FILE NUMBERS: SP207(E)/LCPA 90-08(D)/CT 03-02/SDP 03-
RESORT SITE 021CDP 03-04/PUD 03-01/CUP 03-01/HDP 03-01/
APPROVAL DATE:
Monitoring
Type
Plan check-
Prior to
issuance of a
building
permit
Plan check-
Prior to
issuance of a
grading I Dermit
1 The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate
identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that
this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City’s monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly
Bill 31 80 (Public Resources Code Section 21 081.6).
Monitoring
Department
Building/
Planning
Planning
Mitigation Measure
Low-pressure sodium lamps should be used in any outdoor
lighting fixtures adjacent to the preserve. These lights
should be directed away from the adjacent habitat and used
in conjunction with cut-off shields (fully shielded/ full cutoff
lighting). Lighting shall result in a predicted increase in
illumination at the preserve boundary by no more than 10%
of the ambient levels.
The project boundary adjacent to the preserve area shall be
fenced using a fence designed to minimize accessibility of
the open space by both people and domestic animals. The
fence selection shall be coordinated with the Wildlife
Aaencies and the citv to address barrier desians.
The project shall restrict the use of landscape materials on I Landscape I Landscape/
Lists A & B of the California Invasive Plant Council’s list of
“Exotic Pest Plants of Greatest Ecological Concern in
California as of October 1999”. In addition, proposed
landscape plant material palettes shall be reviewed by the
City of Carlsbad and a qualified biologist to ensure that
materials to be used do not possess known invasive
aualities.
plan check I Planning
Shown on
Plans
Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure.
information.
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be
initialed and dated.
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented,
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other this column will be initialed and dated.
RD - Appendix P.
Mitigation Measure
Prior to any construction activities scheduled from February
15 through August 31, the applicant shall retain a qualified
biologist to conduct a survey for nesting birds, including
northern harrier, within three days prior to the work in the
area and ensure that no nesting birds on-site, or
gnatcatchers in the adjacent preserve area shall be
impacted by the project. If an active nest is identified, a
buffer shall be established between the construction
activities and the nest. The buffer shall be a minimum width
of 300 feet (500 feet for raptors), shall be delineated by
temporary fencing and shall remain in effect as long as
construction is occurring or until the nest is no longer active.
The applicant shall retain a biological monitor to be present
on-site during construction and implementation of mitigation
programs to ensure conservation measures in the MND,
resource agency permits, and construction documents are in
compliance with mitigation measures.
The project should include the preparation of informational
material and signage that specifically addresses the
requirements of development occupants. Materials should
be posted along the preserve fence and should also be
provided as pamphlets made a part of the disclosure
documentation for all new occupants. Material shall be
developed and approved for use by the City of Carlsbad
Planning Department in coordination with Wildlife Agencies.
Exdanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure.
information. Shown on Plans =When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated.
Monitoring
Type
Planning
Monitoring Department
Planning
Planning -r
Shown on
Plans Remarks Verified
Implementation
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented,
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other
this column will be initialed and dated.
RD - Appendix P.
rn z 4 A 0 z z rn z
r E
2
3 5 zs z = 0 z 4 0 e z c)
0 I rn 0
v) 2
?
LL) m (D
N s w
3
Mitigation Measure
Prior to the issuance of final map 5,000 square feet of site
CA-SDI-8797, as identified on project plans, shall be placed
in an open space easement and capped. The capping will
be one inch of clean sand and a minimum of 12-inches of
clean fill. Water lines and other utilities will need to be
placed outside the open space easement or within the fill
soil. This area as well as the adjacent slope shall contain
only native plants, shall be assisted in design by the Native
American representative and shall be posted with a plaque
discussing Native American history.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a data recovery
program shall be completed for CA-SDI-8797. The data
recovery program shall be completed in compliance with the
City of Carlsbad “Cultural Resources Guidelines” and with
Data Recovery Plan prepared by Gallegos & Associates,
Monitoring Department
April, 2003.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall
Shown on Verified
Plans Implementation
provide an updated and detailed‘ acoustical analysis to show
compliance with interior noise level of 45dB CNEL.
Plan Check
ExDlanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure.
information. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be
initialed and dated.
Planning
Monitoring
Type
Plan check-
Prior to
issuance of a
grading
permit
Remarks
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented,
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other
this column will be initialed and dated.
RD - Appendix P.