Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-03-07; Planning Commission; Resolution 62541 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6254 2-A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A 4 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT 6 PERMIT, FOR THE DEMOLITION OF A HOTEL, RESTAURANT, AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND 7 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 3-STORY, 104-ROOM HOTEL PROJECT LOCATED AT 3136 CARLSBAD 8 BOULEVARD ON THE EAST SIDE OF CARLSBAD 9 BOULEVARD BETWEEN PINE AVENUE AND OAK AVENUE IN LAND USE DISTRICT 9 OF THE CARLSBAD 10 VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA, IN THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AND MELLO II SEGMENTS OF THE 11 LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. 12 CASE NAME: DKN HOTEL 13 CASE NO.: GPA 05-05/ZC 05-02/LCPA 05-02/ CDP 05-14/SDP 05-04 14 WHEREAS, Dahya Bhai L. and Shantaben Patel, "Developer/Owner," has , t filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as 17 Portion of Block 18, Town of Carlsbad per Map No. 775, Recorded 2-15-1894 and Portion of Tract 100, Carlsbad Lands 18 per Map 1661, Recorded 3-1-1915, all in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. APN 203-250-08 and 19 26-00 20 ("the Property"); and 21 WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said 22 project; and 24 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of March, 2007, hold a 25 duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 26 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 27 and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and 28 considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration. 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning 2 Commission as follows: 3 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 4 <- B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration, 6 Exhibit "ND," dated March 7, 2007 according to Exhibits "NOI" dated December 28, 2006, and "PII" dated December 21, 2006, attached hereto and 7 made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Q Findings: 9 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: 10 a. it has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Negative Declaration DKN Hotels - GPA 05-05/ZC 05-02/LCPA 05-02/CDP 05-14/SDP 05-047 the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to 12 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and 13 b. the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of 14 the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and , fi c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and 17 d. based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence 18 the project will have a significant effect on the environment. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PC RESO NO. 6254 -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 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of March, 2007, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Cardosa, Dominguez, Douglas, Montgomery, and Segall None ABSENT: Commissioner Whitton ABSTAIN: None JimiE BAKER, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: DON NEU Planning Director PC RESO NO. 6254 -3- City of Carlsbad Planning Department NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: CASE NO: PROJECT LOCATION: DKN Hotels GPA 05-05/ZC 05-02/LCPA 05-02/RP 05-03/SDP 05-04/CDP 05-14 On the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard and west side of Lincoln Street between Oak Avenue and Pine Avenue. 3136 Carlsbad Boulevard, 203-250-08 and 26. Carlsbad . San Diego County. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A General Plan Amendment of the Land Use Element to change the Land Use from Residential High to Travel/Recreation Commercial, a Zone Change from Multiple Residential Family Zone (R-3) to Tourist Commercial (C-T) on a portion of the project, a Local Coastal Program Amendment to change the Land Use and Zoning, and a Redevelopment Permit, Site Development Permit and Coastal Development permit for the demolition of an existing 28 unit motel, a 1125 square foot restaurant and single family residence for the construction of a 104 unit, three story hotel with two underground levels of parking for 125 vehicles on a .84 acre parcel. 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) did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: 1X1 The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. I I 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. (Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed). I I 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. 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:~7 , pursuant to City Council Resolution No. I-OQ ATTEST: DON NEU Assistant Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: CASE NO: 14 PROJECT LOCATION: DKN Hotels GPA 05-05/ZC 05-02/LCPA 05-02/RP 05-03/SDP 05-04/CDP 05- On the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard and west side of Lincoln 3136 Carlsbad Boulevard, 203-250-08 and 26.Street between Oak Avenue and Pine Avenue. Carlsbad , San Diego County. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A General Plan Amendment of the Land Use Element to change the Land Use from Residential High to Travel/Recreation Commercial, a Zone Change from Multiple Residential Family Zone (R-3) to Tourist Commercial (C-T) on a portion of the project, a Local Coastal Program Amendment to change the Land Use and Zoning, and a Redevelopment Permit, Site Development Permit and Coastal Development permit for the demolition of an existing 28 unit motel, 1125 square foot restaurant and a single family residence for the construction of a 104 unit, three story hotel with two underground levels of parking for 125 vehicles on a .84 acre parcel. 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) did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the environment. Therefore, a 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 Negative Declaration is 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 Negative Declaration are subject to review and approval/adoption 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 van Lynch in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4613 or Cliff Jones in the Village Redevelopment Office at 434-2813. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD December 28. 2006 through January 27, 2007 PUBLISH DATE December 28. 2006 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us SITE DKN MARRIOTT GPA 05-05/ZC 05-02/LCPA 05-02/RP 05- 03/SDP 05-04/CDP 05-14 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - INITIAL STUDY CASE NO: GPA 05-05/ZC 05-02/LCPA 05-02/RP 05-037 SDP 05-04/ CDP 05-14 DATE: December 21.2006 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: DKN - Marriott 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Cliff Jones (760) 434-2813. Van Lynch (760) 602-4613 4. PROJECT LOCATION: The project is located at 3136 Carlsbad Boulevard, on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard between Pine Avenue and Oak Avenue. Carlsbad. San Diego County. 203-250-08.26 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: DKN Hotels. 540 Golden Circle Drive #214. Santa Ana. CA 92705 -L 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Village (V). and Residential High (RID that is proposed to change to Travel/Recreation Commercial (TR). 7. ZONING: Village Redevelopment (V-R). and Residential (R-3) that is proposed to change to Commercial Tourist (C-T). 8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): California Coastal Commission 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The proposed project involves a General Plan Amendment Zone Change, Local Coastal Program Amendment. Major Redevelopment Permit. Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit for the demolition of an existing 28 room hotel, 1125 square foot Restaurant and a single family residence to allow for the construction of a three story 104 room hotel with underground parking. The General Plan Amendment is to change the Land Use designation from Residential High density (RH) to Travel/Recreation Commercial (TR) on the easterly portion of the project. The project site consists of two parcels (203-250-08 & 203-250-26) totaling .84 acres. The site is in an urbanized area and is located on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard between Pine Avenue and Oak Avenue. The project proposes to construct a Marriott - Spring Hill Suites hotel on the site. The hotel will contain 104 rooms and suites totaling 62,354 square feet. 125 underground parking spaces are proposed, and automobile access will take access via Carlsbad Boulevard. There will be "loading only" access via Lincoln Street for trash service. The two parcels are currently occupied by the Surf Motel. The Armenian Cafe, and a single family dwelling. These /structures will be demolished, removed and replaced with the proposed Marriott. The site is located within Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) Zone 1 in the northwest quadrant of the City of Carlsbad and in the Mello I and Redevelopment Area segments of the Local Coastal Program. Surrounding properties include a 7-11 convenience store to the north, multi-family Rev. 02/22/06 dwellings to the south, multi-family units to the east and a Carlsbad Inn Beach Resort hotel to the west. • Rev. 02/22/06 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Noise Hazards/Hazardous Materials LJ Population and Housing Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Mandatory Findings of Significance Public Services Recreation Transportation/Circulation Utilities & Service Systems Rev. 02/22/06 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 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. Date Planning Director's Signature Date I2./ZI/OQ Rev. 02/22/06 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. • "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-Ihitial Study", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but all 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. Rev. 02/22/06 • 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-Initial Study analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears after each related set of questions. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant. Rev. 02/22/06 AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 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? d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact a) Less Than Significant Impact. Existing Condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a single family home. The site is visible from Carlsbad Boulevard to the west. Carlsbad Boulevard is considered a Community Theme Corridor in the City of Carlsbad General Plan, and the site is currently landscaped according to the standards of the Carlsbad Scenic Corridor Guidelines Manual. Environmental Evaluation: The subject project will be visible to drivers and pedestrians on Carlsbad Boulevard. Landscaping along Carlsbad Boulevard will help soften and screen the project from motorists. The proposed project is one three story building, which will have a maximum height of 42.83 feet. This height is consistent with the development standards for the area. Finding: Less than significant impact - The proposed project will replace the existing 28 room Surf Motel, restaurant and a single family residential uses. The new structure will not significantly impact the viewshed from either the surrounding uses or from Carlsbad Boulevard. Temporary aesthetic impacts associated with construction of the project will not be significant. Therefore, the project will not have a significant impact on any scenic vista. b) No Impact. Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a single family home. No historic buildings, are located in or adjacent to the site. The site is not located within the viewshed of a State scenic highway or any State highway that is designated by CalTrans as eligible for listing as a scenic highway. Environmental Evaluation: Since no trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings, and no State scenic highways are in the vicinity of the proposed project, no significant impact to such resources is anticipated. Finding: No impact - The site is not within the viewshed of a state scenic highway or any state highway that is designated by CalTrans as eligible for listing. Please also refer to the preceding response. Rev. 02/22/06 ' c) No Impact. Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a single family home. Environmental Evaluation: Permanent visual impacts of the proposed project will involve the construction of a three-story hotel. Temporary impacts associated with construction will be short-term and not significant. A hotel currently occupies the site. No impacts to open spaces will be caused by the proposed project. Therefore, it is concluded that the project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Finding: No impact - Please also refer to response I(a), above. d) No Impact. Existing condition: The subject area presently contains exterior building mounted and parking area lights for the 28 room Surf Motel. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project presently contains exterior building mounted and parking area lights. The proposal will not significantly change the lighting characteristics of the existing building. The project will submit a lighting plan to the Planning Department as part of the approval process. Finding: No impact- It is concluded that the proposed project will not result in a new source of significant light and glare and will not significantly affect day or nighttime views in the area. II. 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: a) 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 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? a) No Impact. Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed. There is no farmland on the site. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project will not impact farmland. Fjndmg: No impact - The project site is currently developed and no farmland exists. Rev. 02/22/06 b) No Impact. Existing condition: See Ha above. Environmental Evaluation: See Ha above. Finding: No impact - See Ha above. c) No Impact. Existing condition: See Ha above. Environmental Evaluation: See Ila above. Finding: No impact - See Ila above. III. 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: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or 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 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Rev. 02/22/06 No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a state non-attainment area for ozone (O3) and for participate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM10). 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 1 994 during the process of updating the 1 99 1 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 15125(B) of the State of California Environmental 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 with the RAQS which include the following: • 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 regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is at Camp Pendleton. Data available for this monitoring site from 2000 through December 2004, indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (a total of 10 days during the 5-year period). No other violations of any air quality standards have been recorded during the 5-year time period. The project would involve minimal short-term emissions associated with grading and construction. Such emissions would be minimized through standard construction measures such as the use of properly tuned equipment and watering the site for dust control. Long-term emissions associated with travel to and from the project will be minimal. 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. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The air basin is currently in a state 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. As described above, however, emissions associated with the proposed project would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the proposed project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a)(4), the proposed project's contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. 10 Rev. 02/22/06 No impact. As noted above, the proposed project would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or concentrations. In addition, there are no sensitive receptors (e.g., schools or hospitals) located in the vicinity of the project. No impact is assessed. e) 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 - 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? 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? 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? 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? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 11 Rev. 02/22/06 a) No Impact. Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a single family home. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project will replace an existing motel use. The site is fully developed and there are no special status, candidate or sensitive biological species on site. Finding: No Impact - No direct impacts to sensitive vegetation protected by CDFG and/or USFWS will occur through implementation of the subject project. b) No Impact. Existing condition: Please refer to explanation of existing condition Section IV(a). No impacts are anticipated. Environmental Evaluation: No permanent impacts to wetlands vegetation would result from implementation of the project. Fjndmg: No Impact - No direct impacts to sensitive vegetation protected by CDFG and/or USFWS will occur through implementation of the subject project. c) No Impact. Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a single family home. No direct filling, hydrological interruption or other impacts to "waters of the U.S." will take place due to the implementation of the subject project. Environmental Evaluation: No impact to wetlands or "waters" is anticipated from the project. Finding: No impact - The project site does not contain any federally protected wetlands or "waters" as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. d) No Impact. Existing condition: Please refer to existing condition response IV(a). Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to existing condition response IV(a). Finding: No impact - The subject property is an already developed with commercial and residential buildings in an urbanized area. e) No Impact. Existing condition: The City of Carlsbad has no adopted tree preservation policy or ordinance which would affect the subject project. In addition, the subject property is an already developed with commercial and residential buildings in an urbanized area. Environmental Evaluation: The subject project will not impact trees or other biological resources protected by policy or ordinance. Findmg: No impact-No tree preservation impacts will result from implementation of the project. 0 No Impact. Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a single family home. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed use is located in an urban area and is consistent with the Habitat Management Plan which identifies that area as urbanized. Finding: No impact - The proposed project is consistent with the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan. 12 Rev. 02/22/06 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique pale ontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? a)-d) No Impact. Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a single family home. Environmental Evaluation: No impacts to historical, archeological, or geological resources will result from implementation of the proposed project. Finding: No impact- The subject site is currently developed and demolition will not result in impacts to historical resources. No historical resources have been identified on the site or within the vicinity of the project; and therefore no impacts to historical, archeological, or geological resources will result from construction of the project. 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: i. 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. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 13 Rev. 02/22/06 iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. 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? 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? Less Than Significant Impact. Existing condition: The project area is situated in the western portion of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province of southern California. This geomorphic province encompasses an area that extends 125 miles from the Transverse Ranges and the Los Angeles Basin, south to the Mexican border, and beyond another 775 miles to the southern tip of Baja California. The westernmost portion of the province in San Diego County, in which the site is located, generally consists of Upper Cretaceous, Tertiary and Quaternary age sedimentary rocks. The most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the north San Diego County area, indicates that the project is considered to be in a seismically active area, as is most of southern California. This map however, indicates that the subject site is not underlain by known active faults, nor is there evidence of ground displacement in the area during the last 1 1,000 years. The Newport-Inglewood fault zone is the closest known fault, which is the onshore portion of an extensive fault zone that includes the Offshore Zone of Deformation and the Rose Canyon fault to the north of the subject site. This fault zone, located approximately four miles westerly of the subject site, is made of predominately right- lateral strike-slip faults that extend south-southeast through the San Diego metropolitan area. The zone extends offshore at La Jolla, and continues north-northwest generally parallel to the coastline. Portions of the Rose Canyon fault zone in the San Diego area have been recognized by the State Geologist to be considered active. Additionally, the Julian and Temecula segments of the Elsinore fault zone, about 23 miles to the northeast of the subject site are also referenced in the Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Environmental Evaluation: No active faults have been mapped across the project site. The closest fault is located approximately four miles westerly of the site. The Elsinore fault zone is located approximately 25 miles east of the site, and the Coronado Bank fault is located approximately 20 miles west of the site. The potential for rupture resulting from earthquake is considered to be low. The subject site is not within a fault-rupture hazard zone as indexed in the Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Because of the lack of known active faults on the site, the potential for surface rupture at the site is considered low. The seismic hazard most likely to impact the site is ground shaking resulting from an earthquake on one of the active regional faults discussed above. Finding: Less than significant impact - The project site is not within a fault-rupture hazard zone as determined in the geotechnical report (Addendum No. 1, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, DKN Hotels, Leighton Consulting, Inc, November 23, 2005), and as indexed in the Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42; therefore the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects. 14 Rev. 02/22/06 Less Than Significant Impact. Existing condition: Southern California is recognized as a seismically-active area. As indicated in the response to Item VI(a)(i), the Newport-Inglewood fault zone is the closest known fault, located approximately four miles westerly of the subject site. This fault is made of predominately right-lateral strike-slip faults that extend south-southeast through the San Diego metropolitan area. The second-closest active area of potential ground motion is the Julian and Temecula segments of the Elsinore fault zone, located 23 miles to the northeast of the subject site. No other known active faults are located within the vicinity of the project. The most significant seismic event likely to affect the proposed facilities would be a maximum moment magnitude 7.1 earthquake along the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, which could produce an estimated horizontal peak ground acceleration of .37g at the site. Environmental Evaluation: The project site will likely be subject to ground shaking in response to either a local moderate or more distant large-magnitude earthquake. Seismic risk at the site is comparable to the risk for the San Diego area in general. The closest source to the site for ground motion, and the source that would produce the greatest ground acceleration at the site, is the Newport-Inglewood fault zone, about four miles west, and potentially the Julian and Temecula segments of the Elsinore fault zone, about 23 miles to the northeast of the project site. Finding: Less than significant impact -Earthquake faults exist within Southern California, including three fault zones within 23 miles of the site. Historical records have indicated however, that the risk of strong seismic ground shaking of the project site is minimal, and thus is considered a less than significant impact. The building will be constructed following the Uniform Building Code standards that are in effect at the time of construction to minimize the effects of strong seismic ground shaking during a seismic event. a)iii. Less Than Significant Impact. Existing condition: Liquefaction of soils with minimal cohesion can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Research indicates that loose granular soils and silts that are saturated by a relatively shallow groundwater table are most susceptible to liquefaction. The site is currently fully developed with an existing motel, restaurant, and a single family home. Environmental Evaluation: The site is currently developed fully and the proposed project will replace the existing building. The new building will be constructed following the Uniform Building Code standards in effect at the time of construction to minimize the effects of liquefaction during a seismic event. Leighton Consulting (Addendum No. 1, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, DKN Hotels, Leighton Consulting, Inc, November 23, 2005) indicates that the on-site soils are not considered liquefiable due to their relatively dense condition and absence of a shallow ground water condition. Finding: Less than significant impact - The potential for liquefaction or seismically induced settlement in the vicinity of the proposed improvements is considered to be very low due to the nature of the underlying soil formation and the lack of groundwater near the surface. a)iv. No Impact. Existing condition: No landslides have been identified as having the potential to damage or affect the proposed project facilities. Environmental Evaluation: No landslides are anticipated to affect the proposed project development improvements. Finding: No impact - No landslides are anticipated to affect the proposed project. 15 Rev. 02/22/06 b) Less Than Significant Impact. Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a single family home site. Environmental Evaluation: The existing motel, restaurant, and home will be replaced by a new three-story hotel. During the finish grading, the exposure of soils would lead to an increased chance for the erosion of soils from the site. Such grading will follow best management practices for the control of erosion, such as straw bale or sandbag barriers, silt fences, slope roughening, and outlet protection in exposed areas. Finished grades will be promptly hydroseeded or otherwise protected as required per the adopted City Grading Ordinance. If necessary, temporary slope cover such as jute matting or mulch will be applied to newly graded slopes to reduce the impact to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil to a level of less than significant. Finding: Less than significant impact- It is concluded that impacts to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil will be less than significant, because the project is required to comply with the erosion control requirements of the City of Carlsbad grading ordinance. c) Less Than Significant Impact. Existing condition: Please refer to existing condition VI(a)(i, ii, and iii). Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to evaluation VI(a)(i, ii, and iii). Finding: Less than significant impact - Please refer to response VI(a)(i, ii, and iii). d) No Impact. Existing condition: Preliminary geotechnical evaluation of the subject site indicates that the site is underlain by Quaternary-aged Terrace Deposits which overlies the Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation. The Quaternary-aged Terrace Deposits are encountered at shallow depths and consist of orange-brown, damp to slightly moist, medium dense to very dense silty fine to medium grained sands. The Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation underlies the entire site at depth and generally consists of light brown to light gray silty sandstones. Environmental Evaluation: Expansion testing indicated that the Quaternary-aged Terrace Deposits as having "very low" to "low" expansion potential. The soil should be prepared and compacted as directed in the Geotechnical Investigation by Leighton Associates, and footings/slabs for all buildings should be constructed as directed in Leighton's report. Finding: No impact - As a result of proper grading, compaction and foundation work, the project will not be subject to adverse soil expansion tendencies. No Impact. Existing condition: Sewers are available for the proposed project. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project will utilize access to the existing sewage trunk line serving the property. As a result, no septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal system facilities are proposed. Finding: No impact - No septic tanks or alternative sewage disposal systems are included in the project description. 16 Rev. 02/22/06 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? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 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? f) 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? 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 wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 17 Rev. 02/22/06 a) Less Than Significant Impact. Existing condition: During construction of the proposed project, construction materials such as petroleum products, paint, oils and solvents will be transported and used on the site. Upon completion of construction of the project, some use of hazardous cleaning products on the site may occur. Other than during this construction phase, the project will not routinely utilize hazardous substances or materials. Environmental Evaluation: There is no evidence of chemical surface staining, or hazardous materials/waste and/or petroleum contamination on the site. Construction of the proposed project will involve operation of heavy machinery, which utilizes petroleum products, paint, oils and solvents. No permanent use of such hazardous materials is anticipated except for some cleaning products used within normal business operations. All transport, handling, use, and disposal of any cleaning substances will comply with all federal, state, and local laws regulating the management and use of such materials. Finding: Less than significant impact - It is concluded that the routine amount of hazardous materials utilized during the construction period is not significant, and therefore the impact to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials is less than significant. b) No Impact. Existing condition: Please refer to the preceding existing condition response. Environmental Evaluation: No significant hazard involving the release of hazardous material into the environment would be anticipated since only regularly used cleaning materials will be utilized, only in normal instances. Finding: No impact - Please refer the response to Section VII(b). No extraordinary risk of accidental explosion or the release of hazardous substances is anticipated with construction, development, and implementation or operation of the proposed project. c) No Impact. Existing condition: The subject project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Environmental Evaluation: The subject project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Finding: No impact - Due to the fact that the proposed project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. d> No Impact. Existing condition: The subject site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites (Federal database) compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 56962.5. Environmental Evaluation: The subject site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites (Federal database) compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 56962.5. In addition, it is not on the EPA database of current and potential Superfund sites currently or previously under investigation. Also, to the best of EPA's knowledge, it has been determined that no steps will be taken to list this site on the National Priorities List (NPL). It is not on any list of registered hazardous waste generators, or on a database of sites which treat, store, dispose of, or incinerate hazardous waste. Finding: No impact - The subject property is not included on any list of hazardous materials, and has no known previous use history that would involve the use or storage of hazardous materials. Rev. 02/22/06 e) No Impact. Existing condition: The subject site is located approximately 4 miles northwest of the McClellan-Palomar Airport runway. The site is not located in the Airport Influence Area of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport (CLUP), adopted April, 1994, prepared by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). Environmental Evaluation: The site is not located within an airport land use plan. Finding: No impact - The project is not located within an airport land use plan and therefore will have no impact on the safety of people residing or working in the project area. 0 No Impact. Existing condition: No private airstrip exists in the vicinity of the subject project. Environmental Evaluation: The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Finding: No impact - The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. g) No Impact. Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a single family home. Environmental Evaluation: Neither construction nor operation of the proposed hotel will significantly affect, block, or interfere with traffic on public streets, including any streets that would be used for an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No emergency response or evacuation plan directs evacuees through the project. Finding: No impact - No improvements are proposed by the project in any area which would physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No Impact. Existing condition: The proposed project site currently consists of a motel, restaurant and a single family home. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project site is surrounded on all four sides by development and as a result will not have any significant exposure to wildland fires. Finding: No impact - The subject property will not expose people or structures to wildland fires. The site is surrounded by development on all four sides. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) 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)? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 19 Rev. 02/22/06 c) 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? d) 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? e) 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? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) 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? h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) 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? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? a) Less Than Significant Impact. . Existing condition: The subject project is required by law to comply with all federal, state and local water quality regulations, including the Clean Water Act, California Administrative Code Title 23, and specific basin plan objectives identified in the "Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin. The subject property is a fully developed motel, restaurant, and a single family home that will be demolished and replaced with a three-story hotel. The site currently generates runoff due to its paved surfaces. The Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin identifies specific objectives for the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit. These objectives include the requirement to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Best Management Practices (BMPs). Environmental Evaluation: After development, there will not be an increase in runoff from the study area. The site will be fully paved and have up to date water management practices in effect. Application, certification and compliance with an NPDES permit for implementation of the subject project will ensure that water quality exiting the subject site will be maintained to a level of acceptability. Finding: Less than significant impact - The proposed project could result in temporary degradation of water quality if it does not demonstrate compliance with all federal, state, and local regulations for water quality. The project proponent shall adhere to applicable RWQCB regulations for control of sedimentation and erosion, including the installation of temporary detention basins or other means of stabilization or impoundment required by the State Water Resources Control Board! All exposed graded areas shall be treated with erosion control pursuant to City of Carlsbad erosion control standards, including hydroseed, berms, desiltation basins, jute matting, sandbags, bladed ditches, or other appropriate methods. Other Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be utilized. 20 Rev. 02/22/06 b) Less Than Significant Impact. Existing condition: Geotechnical test borings by Leighton Consulting, excavated for the subject project, indicated that groundwater was encountered at depths of 33 to 35 feet. Environmental Evaluation: Based on the estimated depth of the proposed development, Leighton Consulting does not expect groundwater to impact the development. Seepage conditions may be locally encountered after periods of heavy rainfall or irrigation. However, these conditions can be treated on individual basis if they occur. Finding: Less than significant impact - The proposed project is not expected to significantly deplete groundwater supplies, or significantly interfere with ground water recharge. c) and d) Less Than Significant Impact. Existing condition: Presently the site drains to the public street. Environmental Evaluation: The project grading will not significantly change the topography, drainage patterns, or amount of runoff from the site. Surface Drainage will still drain to the public street. Finding: Less than significant impact - The project proponent shall comply with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (December 2003) and adhere to applicable RWQCB regulations for control of sedimentation and erosion, including Best Management Practices, such as installation of temporary detention basins or other means of stabilization or impoundment required by the State Water Resources Control Board. The following guidelines shall be utilized during design and implemented during construction to reduce runoff and minimize erosion: a. Comply with current drainage design policies set forth in the City of Carlsbad procedures. b. Create desiltation basins where necessary to minimize erosion and prevent sediment transport until the storm drain system is in place. c. Landscape all exposed, manufactured slopes per City of Carlsbad erosion control standards. d. Phase grading operations and slope landscaping to reduce the susceptibility of.slopes to erosion. e. Control sediment production from graded building pads with low perimeter berms, desiltation basins, jute matting, sandbags, bladed ditches, or other appropriate methods. e) Less Than Significant Impact. Existing condition: Impervious surfaces associated with development of the project will incrementally increase runoff. Environmental Evaluation: . Existing storm water drainage systems on the project site have been designed, approved, and in some cases constructed to accommodate the runoff projected from the proposed project. No impact to existing storm drain systems and no additional sources of polluted runoff will result from implementation of the project. Finding: Less than significant impact - No additional pollution of surface waters is anticipated to result from the project. 0 Less Than Significant Impact. Existing condition: The drainage pattern dictates that the drainage water will travel west to the Pacific Ocean. These drainage facilities serve to maintain a decent water quality. Environmental Evaluation: Construction of the proposed project improvements is required by law to comply with all federal, state and local water quality regulations, including the Clean Water Act and associated NPDES regulations. As mentioned above, the project description includes a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Therefore temporary impacts associated with the construction operation will be mitigated. The project will not result in permanent or long term degradation of water quality as a result of the proposed pollution control program. Finding: Less than significant impact - Please refer to the preceding responses. 21 Rev. 02/22/06 g) Less Than Significant Impact. Existing condition: The proposed project improvements do not involve the placement of housing within the 100-year flood hazard area. Environmental Evaluation: No flood hazard areas exist on the property. Finding: No impact - No flood hazard areas exist on the project site. h) No Impact. Existing condition: The subject project does not propose any structures within the 100-year flood hazard area. Environmental Evaluation: The project will not place any structures within the limits of the identified 100- year flood hazard areas. Thus no impediment to flood flows will result from implementation of the project. Finding: No impact - It is concluded that the proposed project will not impeded or redirect downstream flood flows. No Impact. Existing condition: Please refer to existing condition description VIII(h) above. Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to environmental evaluation discussion Vlll(h) above. No levee or dam exists onsite or downstream of the project. Finding: No impact - It is concluded that the proposed project will not result in increased exposure of 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 j) No Impact. Existing condition: Please refer to existing condition description VIII(h) above. Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to environmental evaluation discussion VIII(h) above. The project site is located well above the expected 5 to 10 foot tsunamis or seiche water level. Finding: No impact - It is concluded that the proposed project will not result in increased exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving tsunami or seiche events. IX. LANDUSE 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) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 22 Rev. 02/22/06 a) No Impact. Existing condition: The project site is currently developed with a motel, restaurant, associated parking lot and landscaping and a single family residence. It is located in an existing urban area. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project involves the removal of the current motel, restaurant and a single family home and replacing them with a three-story hotel. As a result, no division of an existing community would result from development of the project. Finding: No impact - The project would not physically separate any contiguous community areas since a similar use currently occupies the site. b) Less Than Significant Impact. Existing condition: The City of Carlsbad General Plan identifies the subject site as Residential High Density (RH) and Village (V) Land Use. The property is Zoned Multi-family Residential (R-3) and Village Redevelopment (V-R). The project proposes a General Plan Amendment to change the Land Use Element designation of Residential High density (RH) to Travel/Recreation Commercial (TR) and a Zone Change to change the Zoning from Multi-family Residential (R-3) to Commercial Tourist (C-T). Additionally, a Local Coastal Program Amendment is proposed to reflect the changes. These three amendments (General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Local Coastal Program Amendment) will allow the construction of the new three-story hotel. Environmental Evaluation: Following approval of the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Local Coastal Program Amendment, the proposed project will be consistent with all applicable land use plans. No incompatibility will exist between the proposed project and the new land use regulations on the property. The proposed land use is consistent with the majority of the surrounding land uses which include commercial and hotel uses. Finding: Less Than Significant Impact - Following approval of the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Local Coastal Program Amendment, the project will not be in conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the project. c) No Impact. Existing condition: The City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities (HMP) allows authorization for the incidental take of sensitive plant and animal species in conjunction with private developments, public projects and other activities which are consistent with the Plan. The subject site is currently fully developed and part of an existing urban area that is identified for urban uses in the HMP. Environmental Evaluation: The subject site is fully developed and part of an existing urban area that is identified for urban uses in the HMP. Therefore the proposed project is not in conflict with the HMP. Finding: No impact - The subject project site is consistent with the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad. The property is not subject to any other habitat conservation plans. X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: 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? 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 23 Rev. 02/22/06 a) No Impact. Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a single family home. No known or expected mineral deposits of future value to the region and the residents of the state are located in the immediate vicinity of the subject project. Environmental Evaluation: The subject site has been already fully developed. No known mineral resources were identified on the site at the time of original construction. Finding: No impact - No known mineral resource of regional or statewide value are known that would be affected through implementation of the project. The site is not located in an area of mineral resources as identified in MEIR 93-01, map 5.13-1. b) No Impact. Existing condition: Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item X(a) and (b). Environmental Evaluation: Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item X(a) and (b). Finding: No impact - Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item X(a) and (b). 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? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact 24 Rev. 02/22/06 a) No Impact. Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a single family home site. Environmental Evaluation: In terms of noise generation, the construction of the proposed project is anticipated to create the greatest amount of noise, inasmuch as the permanent use will not create significant noise. The City of Carlsbad Municipal Code (Chapter 8.48) prohibits construction activity that would create disturbing, excessive, or offensive noise after sunset of any day, and before 7 A.M. Monday through Friday, and before 8 A.M. on Saturday, and all day Sunday and specified holidays. The Noise Ordinance does not set a defined noise level standard for construction activities, but simply limits the hours of construction. The significance of construction noise produced during project construction is typically assessed in accordance with the County of San Diego Noise Ordinance. San Diego County Noise Ordinance Section 36.410 stipulates that construction noise shall not exceed 75 dB for more than 8 hours during any 24-hour period. Noise from the pool and spa area will be attenuated from the adjacent residential by the hotel building. The pool and spa will also have a restriction regarding late night hour useage. Finding: No impact - Both construction noise levels and permanent noise levels generated by the project are anticipated to comply with City of Carlsbad Noise Policy standards. b) No Impact. Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a single family home and does not generate ground vibrations as part of regular business. Environmental Evaluation: Although some ground vibration may occur during demolition and construction of the new project, the proposed hotel is not anticipated to expose persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or noise levels. Finding: No impact - The project will not produce any significant groundbourne vibration. c) No Impact. Existing condition: Please refer to response XI(a). Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to response XI(a). Finding: No impact - The proposed project will not result in an increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels generated by Carlsbad Boulevard without the project. Noise from Carlsbad Boulevard will be reduced due to the location and mass of the proposed building. The proposed buildings orientation and the proposed mechanical ventilation systems effectively reduce noise levels generated by hotel patrons. d) No Impact. Existing condition: Please refer to response XI(a). Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to response XI(a). Finding: No impact - The proposed project will not result in an increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. e) No Impact. Existing condition: The subject site is located approximately 4 miles from the McClellan-Palomar Airport. Environmental Evaluation: The subject site is not located within 2 miles of a public airport. Finding: No impact - The subject site will not expose people to excessive noise due to the fact that it is not located within 2 miles of a public airport. 0 No Impact. Existing condition: No private airstrip exists in the vicinity of the subject project. Environmental Evaluation: The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Finding: No impact - The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. 25 Rev. 02/22/06 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Less Than Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact XII. POPULATION 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)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? a) No Impact. Existing condition: The subject project is an existing commercial/motel/residential use located in an already developed urban area. Implementation of the project would result in a minor increase in the intensity of usage of the site, but not in population. The subject site has been identified as a location for urban development. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project involves the removal of an existing motel, restaurant and a single family residence uses and replacing them with a 104 room three story hotel. No increase in population is anticipated as a result of the service industry jobs related to the 62,354 square feet of hotel development. The proposed project will be consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning. As a result, no inducement for substantial growth, either directly or indirectly will occur through implementation of the subject project. Finding: No impact - The project will not induce substantial growth, nor will it induce population growth by providing infrastructure to support unplanned growth. The property is designated for urban development consistent with the City's General Plan. b) Less Than Significant Impact. Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a single family home. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project will displace one single family dwelling unit. Finding: Less than significant impact - One single family dwelling unit will be demolished as part of the construction of the proposed hotel. A less than significant impact will occur as a result of the loss of one housing unit. Less Than Significant Impact. Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a single family home. - Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project will displace one single family dwelling unit Finding: Less than significant impact - One single family dwelling unit will be displaced by the implementation of this project. A substantial number of people will not be displaced and replacement housing will not be necessary. 26 Rev. 02/22/06 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: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact No Impact Existing condition: The subject site is located within the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) area. City of Carlsbad Fire Station No. 1 (1275 Carlsbad Village Drive) serves the subject site. Environmental Evaluation: The subject site is considered by the Carlsbad Fire Department to be within an effective fire response time of Fire Station No. 1. The subject project will not measurably affect anticipated current fire response times. Finding: No impact - The proposed project is within an area anticipated by the Fire Department for urban development, and planned within their standard response time. The project will comply with the standards identified in the Zone 1 LFMP, and therefore will not have any measurable affect on the fire service demands or needs of the area. No Impact Existing condition: The Carlsbad Police Department (CPD), located on 2560 Orion Way, services the entire city of Carlsbad. Although the City has not established an official service standard for the department, CPD does maintain a general in-house guideline that is followed in order to assure adequate police service to the community. This guideline suggests a six-minute maximum response time anywhere within the city limits. In order to achieve this level of emergency service and to sufficiently patrol the city, the CPD currently operates seven beats, each patrolled at any given time by one or two officers. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project does not represent an increase in demand on CPD resources. However, for any increased demand, the department is sufficiently staffed to absorb demand and continue to meet their own general service guideline of maintaining a six-minute emergency response time. Finding: No impact - The proposed project will not result in an increase in demand on police protection resources, and the police department's service guideline will continue to be met. 27 Rev. 02/22/06 No Impact Existing condition: schools. Environmental Evaluation: student generation. Finding: No impact - The project will not generate any need for school services and, therefore, will have no impact on schools serving the area. The proposed project is non-residential, and will not cause an increase in demand for The proposed project is non-residential, and will have no impact on school a)iv. No Impact Existing condition: The proposed project is non residential and will not create an increase in demand for parks. The existing Zone 1 parks, including Pine Avenue Park and Hosp Grove Park fulfill Zone 1's park requirement adequately. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project is non-residential and will not create an increase in demand for parks. Finding: No impact-The proposed project is non residential and will not create an increase in demand for parks. The existing Zone 1 parks, including Pine Avenue Park and Hosp Grove Park fulfill Zone 1 's park requirement adequately. a)v. No Impact Existing condition: Sewer: The Carlsbad Municipal Water District provides sewer service to the subject site. Sewage from the site is processed at the Encina Wastewater Treatment Facility, via a sewer trunk line located in the surrounding developed streets and lateral lines that currently serve the property. The Zone 1 LFMP stipulates that sewer trunk line capacity must meet demand as determined by appropriate sewer districts and must be provided concurrent with development. Water: The Carlsbad Municipal Water District provides water service to the subject site. Water is provided via an existing water line and lateral currently connected to the project. The Zone 1 LFMP stipulates that water line capacity must meet demand as determined by appropriate water district and must be provided concurrent with development. Also, that a minimum ten day average storage capacity must be provided prior to any development. Environmental Evaluation: Sewer: The subject project is not anticipated to exceed sewer demand planned by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District for the subject site. Water: The subject project is not anticipated to exceed water demand planned by the Municipal Water District for the subject site. Finding: No impact - The proposed project will generate sewer and water usage demands anticipated at the time of initial construction of the existing building. No unanticipated demands will occur as a result of the project. Less Than Significant No Impact Impact XIV. RECREATION Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 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? 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? 28 Rev. 02/22/06 a) No Impact Existing condition: The proposed project is non-residential and will not create an increase in demand for parks. The existing Zone 1 parks, including Pine Avenue Park and Hosp Grove Park fulfill Zone 1 's park requirement adequately. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project is non-residential and will not create an increase in demand for parks. The existing Zone 1 parks, including Pine Avenue Park and Hosp Grove Park fulfill Zone 1 's park requirement adequately. Finding: No impact - The proposed project will not result in an increase in demand beyond that already accommodated, on recreational facilities of any kind. b) No Impact Existing condition: The proposed project does include recreational facilities for hotel guests. A pool, spa, and indoor exercise area will be constructed for the use of the hotels patrons." Environmental Evaluation: The proposed recreational facilities will not have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Finding: No impact - The proposed recreational facilities will not result in any adverse physical effect on the environment XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) 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)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 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? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in insufficient parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn- outs, bicycle racks)? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 29 Rev. 02/22/06 a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate 832] Average Daily Trips (ADT) and 59| peak hour trips. The present uses generate 326 ADT. The net increase is 506 ADT. This traffic will utilize the following roadway: Carlsbad Boulevard!. Existing traffic on this arterials is 17,725'ADT (2005) and the 2005 peak hour level of service at the arterial intersection(s) impacted by the project is BL The design capacity of the arterial road affected by the proposed project is 20,000 to 40,000 vehicles per day. The project traffic would represent 4.7% and 2.1% of the existing traffic volume and the design capacity respectively. 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 project and cumulative development in the City of Carlsbad. The proposed project would not, therefore, cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The impacts from the proposed project are, therefore, less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency 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 Existing and Buildout average daily traffic (ADT) and Existing LOS on these designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is: Existing ADT* LOS Buildout ADT* Rancho Santa Fe Road 17-35 "A-D" 35-56 El Camino Real 27-49 "A-C" 33-62 Palomar Airport Road 10-57 "A-D" 30-73 SR78 124-142 "F" 156-180 1-5 199-216 "D" 260-272 * The numbers are in thousands of daily trips. The Congestion Management Program's (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is "E", or LOS "F" if that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS "F" in 1990). Accordingly, all designated roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS. Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region's general and community plans. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan and, therefore, its traffic was used in modeling the buildout projections. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) "E" standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacity(ies) of the designated roads and highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short-term and at buildout. c) No Impact. The proposed project does hot include any aviation components and is not located within the McClellan-Palomar Airport influence area. No impact assessed. d) 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 and Zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed. e) No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police Departments. No impact assessed. 0 No Impact. The proposed project is not requesting a parking variance. Additionally, the project would comply with the City's parking requirements to ensure an adequate parking supply. No impact assessed. 30 Rev. 02/22/06 g) No Impact. The project is near public transportation (i.e. Bus & Rail Transit). Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) 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? c) 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? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 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? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? a) Less Than Significant Impact. Existing condition: The proposed project will create a small increase in wastewater generated by the existing motel/restaurant/residential use. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project will create a small increase in wastewater. Finding: Less than significant impact - The project would have a less than significant impact on wastewater treatment. 31 Rev. 02/22/06 b) No Impact. Existing condition: Please refer to the previous response. The project will not result in a significant increase in quantity of wastewater generation already handled by the Encina Wastewater Treatment Plant. Environmental Evaluation: The project will not result in a significant increase in quantity of wastewater generation already handled by the Encina Wastewater Treatment Plant. Finding: No impact - No additional water or wastewater treatment facilities will be required due to the construction of the proposed project. c) Less Than Significant Impact. Existing condition: The proposed project site is an existing commercial/motel/residential use. Storm water drainage facilities were constructed at the time of initial development and are functioning and in place currently. Environmental Evaluation: Minimal improvements will be made to the drainage facilities. Both upstream and downstream facilities contain adequate capacity and functionality to accept the storm water demands resulting when the project is complete. Finding: Less than significant impact - No significant environmental effects will result from the implementation of new drainage facilities during construction of the proposed hotel. d) Less Than Significant Impact. Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a single family home. Water supply facilities were constructed at the time of initial development are functioning and in place currently. Environmental Evaluation: Water service will be supplied by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District. The site is identified in the City's MEIR 93-01 for urban uses. Proposed water usage on the site will be for landscape irrigation and the regular water usage associated with a 104 room hotel. The project will have no significant impact on water supplies. Finding: Less than significant impact - The project will not result in a significant impact to water supplies. e) Less Than Significant Impact. Existing condition: Please refer to response XVI(a). Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to response XVI(a). Findjng: Less than significant impact - No significant increase in wastewater treatment will result from the project. 0 No Impact. Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a single family home. Environmental Evaluation: The project site has been planned as an urban community. No unanticipated significant increase in solid waste disposal is anticipated to result from implementation of the project. The waste provider will be Waste Management Services, and the City's engineering staff will have Waste Management Services review the site plan for service adequacy as part of the approval process. Finding: No impact - No measurable significant increase in impact on solid waste creation is expected to result from the subject project. 32 Rev. 02/22/06 g) No Impact. Existing condition: See previous response. The subject project is not anticipated to create any significant increase in the amount of solid waste. The project is required to comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Environmental Evaluation: The project will create no significant impact on solid waste collection and disposal, and will comply with federal, state and local statutes. Finding: No impact - The project will create no significant impact on solid waste collection and disposal, and will comply with federal, state and local statutes. Less Than Significant No Impact Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 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? 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?) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) Less Than Significant Impact. Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a single family home. The site drains directly into the Pacific Ocean. The project must also obtain a NPDES permit prior to construction. The permit will require that the project develop and implement specific erosion control and storm water pollution prevention plans to protect water quality. Environmental Evaluation: After development, there will be an increase in runoff from the study area. A portion of the increase in runoff will be due to the use of imported water into the study area for landscaping, etc. The remaining water increase will be due to the increased impervious area within the project site. The drainage pattern dictates that this drainage water will flow west to the Pacific Ocean. Application, certification and compliance with an NPDES permit for implementation of the subject project will ensure that water quality entering the Pacific Ocean will be maintained to a level of acceptability. Finding: Less than significant impact - Please refer to the responses to Sections IV and V. 33 Rev. 02/22/06 b) Less Than Significant Impact. Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a single family home. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project will contribute incrementally to air pollution and traffic congestion in the vicinity. Finding: Less than significant impact - It is concluded that the cumulative impacts to air quality and traffic will be less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact. Existing condition: The subject site is currently developed with the 28 room Surf Motel, a restaurant and a single family home. Environmental Evaluation: The project does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Finding: Less than significant impact - Potential adverse effects on the human population have been evaluated in preceding sections of this checklist. No unmitigable adverse environmental effects attributable to the project have been identified. XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. 2. Comprehensive Land Use Plan McClellan-Palomar Airport, San Diego Association of Governments, (April, 1994) 3. Current Rules and Regulations, County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District (November, 2002). 4. San Diego County Important Farmland, California Department of Conservation (September, 2002). 5. Uniform Building Code-Volume 1 (1997); Table 18-1-B. 6. Special Publication 42, California Geological Survey; State Geologist Division of Mines and Geology (May 1996). 7. Traffic Impact Analysis, Carlsbad Springhill Suites, Linscott Law and Greenspan., (October 27, 2005). 8. Storm Water Management Plan, Springhill Suites, Aquaterra Engineering, Inc. April 26, 2005. 9. Preliminary Hydrology Report, Springhill Suites, Aquaterra Engineering, Inc. October 10, 2005. 10. Addendum No. 1, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, DKN Hotels, Leighton Consulting, Inc, November 23 ,2005. 11. Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan, City of Carlsbad Planning Department, (July 1987). 34 Rev. 02/22/06