Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-06-20; Planning Commission; Resolution 63151 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6315 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW THE 4 DEVELOPMENT OF A 102,191 SQUARE FOOT HEALTH CLUB ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF EL 6 CAMINO REAL AND PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5. 7 CASE NAME: PACIFIC ATHLETIC CLUB CASE NO.: SDP 06-05/SUP 06-038 9 WHEREAS, Western Athletic Clubs, "Developer," has filed a verified 10 application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by County of San Diego- 11 Airports, "Owner," described as 12 That portion of Palomar Airport in Lot "G" of the Rancho 13 Hedionda, in the City of Carlsbad, in the County of San Diego, State of California, According to Partition Map thereof No. 14 832, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of said San Diego County and described in the title report 16 ("the Property"); and 17 WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said 18 project; and 19 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 20th day of June 2007, hold a 20 duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 21 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 22 _,, and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and 24 considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors 25 relating to the Negative Declaration. 26 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning 27 Commission as follows: 28 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning 2 Commission hereby ADOPTS the Negative Declaration, Exhibit "ND," dated June 20, 2007 according to Exhibits "NOl" dated May 7, 2007, and "PII" dated 3 May 1, 2007, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: 4 c Findings: 5 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: 7 a. it has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Negative Declaration for the Pacific Athletic Club (SDP 06-05/SUP 06-03), the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to 9 APPROVING the project; and 10 b. the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and 12 c. it reflects the independent judgment ol the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and 14 d. based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning 17 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of June, 2007, by the 18 following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Boddy, Cardosa, Dominguez, 2Q Douglas, Montgomery, and Whitton 21 NOES: 22 ABSENT: f \f- -ABSTAIN: 24 25 JULIE fy\KER, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION26 27 28 DON NEU Planning Director PCRESONO. 6315 -2- City of Carlsbad Planning Department CASE NAME: CASE NO: PROJECT LOCATION: NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pacific Athletic Club SDP06-05/SUP 06-03 6111 El Camino Real. Carlsbad. CA. San Diego County PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project is a proposal to construct a 102,191 square foot two-story health club on the southwest corner of the intersection of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road. The 15.9 acre project site is currently developed as the Olympic Resort and Spa, which includes an 80 room hotel, restaurant, health club, spa, conference center, parking lot, tennis courts and a golf driving range. The new health club is proposed in the location of the existing golf driving range. The existing tennis courts and parking lot will be demolished and replaced by a new main entrance off Palomar Airport Road, and a parking lot and landscaping to serve the entire project site. The site is surrounded by existing development, with the McClellan-Palomar Airport to the north, industrial development to the east and south, and the San Diego County Animal Control (Humane Society) facility to the west. The proposed health club is being developed by Western Athletic Clubs and will include an 85,410 square foot health club facility with an 8,738 square foot Phase II health club expansion. Also included in the club is a 5,063 square foot health spa, a 2,980 square foot sports therapy center, two 8 lane lap pools, a child's wading pool, two Jacuzzi spas, and 7 tennis courts. Western Athletic Clubs has purchased the existing Olympic Resort and Spa and now controls the entire lease space. Following completion of the proposed health club, the existing Olympic Resort and Spa will be restructured, in that the existing spa and health club facilities will be removed and replaced by additional conference room facilities and a cafe. 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: 13 The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. O 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). l~l 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: ATTEST: June 20, 2007, pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 6315 DON NEU Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us FILE CO City of Carlsbad Planning Department NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: CASE NO: PROJECT LOCATION: Pacific Athletic Club SDP 06-057 SUP 06-03 6111 El Camino Real, Carlsbad. CA. San Diego County PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project is a proposal to construct a 102,191 square foot two-story health club on the southwest corner of the intersection of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road. The 15.9 acre project site is currently developed as the Olympic Resort and Spa, which includes an 80 room hotel, restaurant, health club, spa, conference center, parking lot, tennis courts and a golf driving range. The new health club is proposed in the location of the existing golf driving range. The existing tennis courts and parking lot will be demolished and replaced by a new main entrance off Palomar Airport Road, and a parking lot and landscaping to serve the entire.project site. The site is surrounded by existing development, with the McClellan-Palomar Airport to the north, industrial development to the east and south, and the San Diego County Animal Control (Humane Society) facility to the west. The proposed health club is being developed by Western Athletic Clubs and will include an 85,410 square foot health club facility with an 8,738 square foot Phase II health club expansion. Also included in the club is a 5,063 square foot health spa, a 2,980 square foot sports therapy center, two 8 lane lap pools, a child's wading pool, two Jacuzzi spas, and 7 tennis courts. Western Athletic Clubs has purchased the existing Olympic Resort and Spa and now controls the entire lease space. Following completion of the proposed health club, the existing Olympic Resort and Spa will be restructured, in that the existing spa and health club facilities will be removed and replaced by additional conference room facilities and a cafe. 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 Planning Commission. 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 20 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 Jason Goff in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4643. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD PUBLISH DATE May 7. 2007 through May 29. 2007 May 7. 2007 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us FILE COPY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - INITIAL STUDY CASE NO: SDP 06-057 SUP 06-03 DATE: April 27, 2007 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Pacific Athletic Club 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad, 1635 Faraday Avenue. Carlsbad. CA 92008 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Jason Goff. (760') 602-4643 4. PROJECT LOCATION: Southwest corner of Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real (6111 El Camino Real) 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Western Athletic Clubs. One Lombard St. San Francisco. CA 94111 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: T-R (Travel/Recreation Commercial) 7. ZONING: C-T-O (Tourist Commercial with Qualified Development Overlay) 8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The project is a proposal to construct a 102,191 square foot two-story health club on the southwest corner of the intersection of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road. The 15.9 acre project site is currently developed as the Olympic Resort and Spa, which includes an 80 room hotel, restaurant, health club, spa, conference center, parking lot, tennis courts and a golf driving range. The new health club is proposed in the location of the existing golf driving range. The existing tennis courts and parking lot will be demolished and replaced by a new main entrance off Palomar Airport Road, and a parking lot and landscaping to serve the entire project site. The site is surrounded by existing development, with the McClellan-Palomar Airport to the north, industrial development to the east and south, and the San Diego County Animal Control (Humane Society) facility to the west. The proposed health club is being developed by Western Athletic Clubs and will include an 85,410 square foot health club facility with an 8,738 square foot Phase II health club expansion. Also included in the club is a 5,063 square foot health spa, a 2,980 square foot sports therapy center, two 8 lane lap pools, a child's wading pool, two Jacuzzi spas, and 7 tennis courts. Western Athletic Clubs has purchased the existing Olympic Resort and Spa and now controls the entire lease space. Following completion of the proposed health club, the existing Olympic Resort and Spa will be restructured, in that the existing spa and health club facilities will be removed and replaced by additional conference room facilities and a cafe. 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 | | Public Services Land Use and Planning Recreation Mineral Resources J Transportation/Circulation Mandatory Findings of i—|TT... . 0 „ . c. .„ Utilities & Service SystemsSignificance '—' J Rev. 01/02/07 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. cT- /- Date Planning Director's Signature Date Rev. 01/02/07 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-Initial 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. 01/02/07 • 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. 01/02/07 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 D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact a-c) No Impact. The project site is located on the southwest corner of Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real, and is situated below the elevation of both roadways. The site is zoned for Tourist Commercial (C-T) uses and is currently developed with an 80 room hotel, spa, health club, tennis courts, golf driving range and parking lot. Surrounding the site to the north across Palomar Airport Road is the McClellan-Palomar Airport, to the south are existing industrial buildings, to the east is a public utility pumping station and future industrial buildings, and to the west is the San Diego County Animal Control (Humane Society) facility. The proposed project will not have any substantially adverse effects on scenic vistas or substantially damage scenic resources within a State scenic highway by fact of the project's low topographic orientation with its surroundings, and by the fact of it not being located near or adjacent to any State scenic highways. The proposed project will not degrade the existing visual character or the quality of the site and its surroundings in that it is already developed with an existing tourist commercial use and has been designed to comply with the C-T-Q Zone and the El Camino Real Corridor development and design standards. d) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will involve replacing an existing golf driving range (non- lighted) with parking lot and a new building. The proposed parking lot will be illuminated with standard parking lot lighting. While a new source of light will be created by the project, impacts will be minimal in that parking light fixtures and exterior building light fixtures will be shielded and directed downward to reduce impacts caused by glare. Rev. 01/02/07 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? 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact El a-c) No Impact. The project site is zoned for tourist commercial uses and is currently developed with an existing 80 room hotel, spa, health club, tennis courts, golf driving range and parking lot. The proposed project does not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use; does not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or Williamson Act contracts; and there are no agricultural uses within the vicinity of the project site, nor is the project proposing any changes, which due to its location or nature would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact El Rev. 01/02/07 c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) 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 paniculate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PMio). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). A Plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state- mandated plan. ThisJocal 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 (ARE) 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. Rev. 01/02/07 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. d) No impact. As noted above, the proposed 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact Rev. 01/02/07 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 Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) No Impact. The project site is currently developed with an 80 room hotel, restaurant, health club, spa, conference center, parking lot, tennis courts and a golf driving range. The existing tennis courts and parking lot will be removed and redeveloped as a main entrance, parking lot and landscaping for the project whole; and the golf driving range will be removed and replaced by the new health club facility. The project site is surrounded by existing development, with the McClellan-Palomar Airport to the north, industrial development to the east and south, and the San Diego County Animal Control facility to the west. According to the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan, the project is considered developed and not a part of or adjacent to the habitat preserve system. No habitat exists onsite, other than exotic landscapes associated with the existing Olympic Resort and Spa. The project will have no impact 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-c) No Impact. No riparian, aquatic, or wetland habitat is present on the site. However, the storm water collected from the project site and neighboring properties will outflow at the southwest corner of the site through a drainage channel, which according to the Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP). prepared by Excel Engineering (August 21, 2006) and the San Diego Basin Plan, drains to Canyon de Las Encinas and ultimately into the Pacific Ocean. 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, which will mitigate temporary impacts associated with construction operation to a level less than significant. Furthermore, the project will not result in permanent or long term degradation of water quality as a result of the proposed pollution control program. Therefore, no habitat under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Game, or Regional Water Quality Control Board will be impacted. d-f) No Impact. According the City of Carlsbad's Habitat Management Plan, there are no wildlife or habitat linkages on or near the project site. The project site is fully developed with structures and exotic landscapes. There is no native habitat existing onsite. Overall, the project site does no support any high-quality biological resources, nor does it conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, or any provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. 10 Rev. 01/02/07 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. The project site has been previously excavated and graded for the development of an existing hotel, spa, health club, tennis courts, golf driving range and parking lot. There are no known historical resources, archeological resources, paleontological resources, or human remains on-site. 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? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 11 Rev. 01/02/07 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact a.i.-a.iii.) Less than Significant Impact. A geotechnical investigation of the project site was prepared by Leighton Consulting, Inc. (Project No. 600853-002, June 23, 2006) to provide subsurface information and geotechnical recommendations specific to the proposed Pacific Athletic Club. According to this report, the subject site is not located within any Earthquake Fault Zones as created by the Alquist-Priolo Act, nor are there any known major or active faults on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. Because of the lack of known active faults on the site, the potential for surface rupture at the site is considered low. The main seismic hazard that may affect the site is ground shaking from one of the active regional faults, with the nearest known active fault being the Rose Canyon Fault Zone located 6.9 miles west of the site. Due to the high clay content and relatively dense nature of on-site soils, risk of seismic-related ground failure or liquefaction is very minimal. a.iv.) No Impact. The topography of the site is considered relatively flat with elevations ranging from approximately 250 feet above mean sea level (msl) in the southwest portion of the site to approximately 280 feet msl at the southeast corner of the site. The geotechnical report prepared by Leighton Consulting, Inc. (Project No. 600853-002, June 23, 2006) reports that there is no evidence of ancient landslides existing on the subject site. b) No Impact. The topography of the site is considered relatively flat with elevations ranging from approximately 250 feet above mean sea level (msl) in the southwest portion of the site to approximately 280 feet msl at the southeast corner of the site. The project's compliance with standards in the City's Excavation and Grading Ordinance that prevent erosion through slope planting and installation of temporary erosion control means will avoid substantial soil erosion impacts. c) Less than Significant Impact. See Section a.i to a.iii above. d) Less Than Significant Impact. A geotechnical investigation of the project site was prepared by Leighton Consulting, Inc. (Project No. 600853-002, June 23, 2006) to provide subsurface information and geotechnical recommendations specific to the proposed Pacific Athletic Club. According to the report, the project site is underlain by units of soils consisting of undocumented fill, Quaternary alluvium, and Santiago Formation. The predominant soil type at-grade within the proposed project site is Quaternary Alluvium, which is considered to have a medium to very high expansion potential. The claystone soils of the Santiago Formation are considered to have a high to very high expansive potential. Through the implementation of the geotechnical design recommendations outlined in the report, the development of the site is considered feasible and impacts from expansive soils are low. 12 Rev. 01/02/07 e) No Impact. The proposed project does not propose septic tanks and will utilize the public sewer system. Therefore, there will be no impacts involving soils that support the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D a-b) Less than Significant Impact. The project requires the onsite storage of up to 1,500 gallons of liquid chlorine and up to 150 gallons of Muratic acid for the treatment of the two lap pools, two spas and wading pool. Storage and 13 Rev. 01/02/07 safe handling of these chemicals are regulated by Article 80 of the California Fire Code. Furthermore, this facility and all activities are subject to the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Order No. R9-2007-0001 and all related City Ordinances and requirements. Therefore, the project does not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment and impacts are considered less than significant. c-d) No Impact. There are no existing or proposed schools within one-quarter of a mile of the site, and the project site is not included on any lists as a hazardous materials site compiled pursuant to the Government Code Section 65962.5. e-f) Less than Significant Impact. The northern one-third of the project site is located within the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) as identified in the McClellan-Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). This area of the project will be developed as a parking lot, which is considered an acceptable use within the RPZ. The remainder of the site is located within the Airport- Influence Area. The proposed Health Club use would fall into Land Use Category No. 6 of the CLUP Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix (Office Buildings-Business, Educational, Professional and Personal Services; R&D Offices and Laboratories). An acoustical analysis for the proposed project was prepared by Wieland Associates, Inc. (July 11, 2006) to determine compatibility with the City of Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual and the McClellan-Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). The report found that the two primary noise sources in the vicinity of the site are from aircraft operations at McClellan-Palomar Airport and traffic on Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real. According to the CLUP, the project site is located within the 65-70 CNEL noise contour and the type of use proposed is Conditionally Compatible with the aircraft noise exposure at the site. The design of the buildings will be required to provide a noise reduction of 15 to 20 dB in order to comply with the CLUP's interior CNEL standard of 50 dB(A), and a noise reduction of 13 to 18.5 dB is required in order to comply with the City's interior Leg(h) standard of 55 dB(A). Through implementation of the recommendations outlined in the acoustical analysis, the project will comply with both the City and CLUP noise standards and impacts as a result of noise will be less than significant. Furthermore, an FAR Part 77 Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace was prepared on the project for review by the Federal Aviation Administration. A Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation was made by the FAA on June 28, 2006. g-h) No Impact. The project will not impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, nor is the project located in an area that will expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. 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 Impact No Impact 14 Rev. 01/02/07 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact k) Increase erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. 1) Increase pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? m) Change receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? 15 Rev. 01/02/07 n) Increase any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? o) Increase impervious surfaces and associated runoff? p) Impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat? q) Result in the exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Less than Significant Impact. The subject property 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 San Diego Basin." (WQCP) The WQCP contains specific objectives for the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit which includes the requirement to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs). The project must also obtain a NPDES permit prior to construction. The permit will require the project to develop and implement specific erosion control and storm water pollution prevention plans to protect downstream water quality. These plans will ensure acceptable water quality standards will be maintained both during the construction phase as well as post-development. b) No Impact. This project does not propose to directly draw any groundwater. The project will be served via existing public water distribution lines adjacent to the site. c-e) Less than Significant Impact. The Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) prepared by Excel Engineering (August 21, 2006), indicates that the site has been designed to mimic historic runoff patterns. Existing drainage generally flows from northeast of the site to the southwest corner via open concrete drainage channels along El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road. Near the northwest corner of the site are two storm drains that drain into the site from Palomar Airport Road. The storm water from these channels and pipes converge and pick up the rest of the site drainage through the driving range and then outflows at the southwest corner of the site. As identified in the SWMP, the proposed project site drains to Canyon de Las Encinas and ultimately into the Pacific Ocean. The site presently contributes an estimated 224.08 cfs into the exiting system. Flows will be generally directed and intercepted in the same location by a series of bio-swales, underground piping (Bressi Ranch storm drainage coming from under El Camino Real) and an underground storm drain/detention system. The SWMP shows a combined runoff of 181.6 cfs indicating a modest decrease of 43.02 cfs. The decrease in flows from the pre-development to post-development condition is due to the on-site underground detention system. The proposed improvements will not substantially alter the existing drainage patterns of the site or area, or create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of the existing stormwater drainage system, nor does the project propose uses that cause a substantial, additional source of polluted runoff. 0 Less than Significant Impact. 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 includes a Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan and temporary impacts associated with the construction operation will be mitigated to a level less than significant. The project will not result in permanent or long term degradation of water quality as a result of the proposed pollution control program. 16 Rev. 01/02/07 g-j) No Impact. The project site is not located within the 100-year flood hazard area, and based on the distance between the site and large, open bodies of water, and given the elevation of the site with respect to sea level (250 to 280 feet above mean sea level), the possibility of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow is considered to be low. k) Less than Significant Impact. The construction phase of the project could result in increased erosion. However, as a result of the NPDES permit requirements associated with the proposed project, no significant increase in erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters will result from the project. Urban runoff from the proposed development will be channeled into the appropriate storm drain receptors as indicated in the project's Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) prepared by Excel Engineering (August 21, 2006). The greatest potential for short-term water quality impacts to the drainage basin would be expected during and immediately following the grading and construction phases of the project when cleared and graded areas are exposed to rain and storm water runoff. Standard conditions require compliance with NPDES sediment control requirements during the construction phase and implementation of the post construction BMPs for the project. 1-m) Less than Significant Impact. The Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) prepared by Excel Engineering (August 21, 2006) indicates that the project shall be designed to remove pollutants of concern through storm water conveyance systems to the maximum extent practicable (MEP) through the incorporation of treatment control BMPs. In order to remove primary and secondary pollutants of concern, the Pacific Athletic Club project employs a combination of vegetated swales and hydrodynamic separators. As proposed, subject to compliance with the proposed BMPs, the project will not result in the increase of pollutants into downstream waters, and no receiving water quality will be adversely affected through implementation of the proposed project. Post construction BMPs will further ensure that the project does not change the receiving water quality following construction activities. n) No Impact. The project does not drain to an impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list. o) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will increase the impervious surface area through the removal of the existing golf driving range and the development of the building footprint, parking lot and associated drive aisles. However, associated runoff from the project will be decreased as a result of an on-site underground detention system. p) No Impact. Runoff from the proposed project will not impact aquatic, wetland or riparian habitats, as none of these habitats exist on site or in the vicinity of the site. q) No Impact. The project will not result in the exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial use. Please refer to the preceding responses. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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? 17 Rev. 01/02/07 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 a-c) No Impact. The proposed project is a commercial development that is consistent with the existing and surrounding uses. The site does not physically divide an established community. The proposed project does not conflict with any existing or proposed land use plans or policies of the City of Carlsbad. The project is consistent with the City of Carlsbad General Plan Land Use designation of Travel/Recreation Commercial (T-R), which designates areas for commercial uses that serve the travel and recreational needs of tourists, residents and employees of the business and industrial centers. The project is compatible with the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan. X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact a) b) 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? 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? a-b) No Impact. There is no indication that the subject property contains any known mineral resources that would be of future value to the region or the residents of the State. 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 18 Rev. 01/02/07 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? D a, c, e & f) No Impact. An acoustical analysis for the proposed project was prepared by Wieland Associates, Inc., dated July 11, 2006, to determine compatibility with the City of Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual and the McClellan-Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). The report found that the two primary noise sources in the vicinity of the site are from aircraft operations at McClellan-Palomar Airport and traffic on Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real. According to the CLUP, the project site is located within a CNEL zone of 65 to 70 dB and the type of use proposed is conditionally compatible with the aircraft noise exposure at the site. The design of the buildings will be required to provide a noise reduction of 15 to 20 dB in order to comply with the CLUP's interior CNEL standard of 50 dB(A), and a noise reduction of 13 to 18.5 dB is required in order to comply with the City's interior Leg(h) standard of 55 dB(A). The report indicates that conventional commercial building construction, such as that being used at the project site, will typically provide at least 20 to 25 dB of noise reduction with windows and doors closed. As only 20 dB of noise reduction is needed to comply with the City and CLUP standards, no additional noise mitigation is required. However, as the interior noise standard is to be met with all windows closed, mechanical ventilation is necessary in order to provide a habitable environment. This may be achieved with air conditioning or a fresh air supply system. Through implementation of the recommendations outlined in the acoustical analysis, the project will comply with both the City and CLUP noise standards, and impacts as a result of noise will be less than significant. b & d) Less than Significant Impact. The anticipated grading operation associated with the development of the proposed project would result in a temporary and minor increase in groundborne vibration and ambient noise levels. Following the conclusion of the grading, the ambient noise level and vibrations are expected to return to pre-existing levels. 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)? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 19 Rev. 01/02/07 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-c) No Impact. The proposed Pacific Athletic Club is not considered a growth inducing use, and will not displace housing or people. 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 a.i.-a.v.) No Impact. The proposed Pacific Athletic Club project will not effect the provision and/or availability of public facilities (i.e., fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, etc.). The proposed project shall be subject to the conditions and facility service level requirements within the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 5, therefore no significant public service impacts will occur. 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? 20 Rev. 01/02/07 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? a-b) No Impact. The proposed project is not considered a use that would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks, nor would the proposed private recreational facilities associated with the project have an 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 a) Less Than Significant Impact. The Transportation Analysis for Carlsbad Health Club (April 11. 2007) prepared by Urban Systems Inc., sets the total traffic generated by the new health club and the renovated existing hotel at 4,100 Average Daily Trips (ADT), with 183 AM peak hour trips (110 inbound, 73 outbound) and 365 PM peak hour trips (217 inbound, 148 outbound). The net additional vehicle trips generated by the new project less the existing project site trips are 2,490 ADT, with 108 AM peak hour trips and 224 PM peak hour trips. The project traffic will utilize the following roadways: Palomar Airport Road (PAR) and El Camino Real (ECR). Palomar Airport Road is a six-lane prime arterial extending east from Interstate 5 to the Carlsbad City limits at San Marcos. El Camino Real is also a six-lane prime arterial extending in the north-south direction from the northern to the southern City limits with some segments not yet fully built to six-lanes. The transportation analysis is based on traffic counts obtained from the City of Carlsbad Growth Management Plan Year 2005 Traffic Monitoring Program, the SANDAG/City of Carlsbad Year 2010 Computer Traffic Model, and the SANDAG Year 2030 Combined North 21 Rev. 01/02/07 County Traffic Model. The traffic analysis was conducted for existing conditions, existing conditions plus project, year 2010, year 2010 plus project, buildout and buildout plus project conditions. The traffic evaluation shows that all levels of service for the affected street segments and intersections for all conditions are within acceptable levels of service except for the intersection of PAR and ECR. This intersection is expected to operate at Level of Service "E" with project traffic both in the AM and PM peak hours. In order to mitigate for this project impact to a level that is less than significant, the project has been designed to provide an eastbound PAR to southbound ECR right turn only lane on PAR, an additional northbound ECR to westbound PAR left turn lane on ECR at the intersection, and restricting the existing project driveway on ECR to right turns in and out by closing the existing ECR median opening that allows northbound ECR left turns into the driveway. Through implementation of the recommendations outlined in the traffic analysis and included in the project design, impacts as a result of traffic will be reduced to a level that is 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 APT* 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 not include any aviation components. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport. It would not, therefore, result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. 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. g) No Impact. The project is located on the southwest corner of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road. The project is served by the North County Transit District (NCTD) with bus route 309 serving El Camino Real, and bus route 344 serving Palomar Airport Road. The project has been designed to include a secure bicycle parking area, which is conditioned to provide bicycle racks. 22 Rev. 01/02/07 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D K Kl a-g) No Impact. The proposed project will be required to comply with all Regional Water Quality Control Board Requirements. In addition, the Zone 5 LFMP anticipated that the project site would be developed with travel/recreation commercial uses and therefore wastewater treatment facilities were planned and designed to accommodate this future use. All public facilities, including water facilities, wastewater treatment facilities and drainage facilities, have been planned and designed to accommodate the growth projections for the City at build-out. The project does not result in development that will require expansion or construction of new water facilities/supplies, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage facilities. 23 Rev. 01/02/07 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact El D XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 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) No Impact. The proposed project to develop a new health club facility on the southwest corner of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road will not degrade the quality of the environment. The project site is considered a developed site, which does not contain any fish or wildlife species; is not identified by any habitat conservation plan as containing a protected, rare or endangered plant or animal species; and does not contain any known historical, archeological, or paleontological resources. Therefore, the project will not reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; will not threaten to eliminate or reduce the number of endangered plant and animal species; and will not result in the elimination of any important examples of California history or prehistory. b) Less Than Significant Impact. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional growth for the greater San Diego area, and local general plan land use policies are incorporated into SANDAG projections. Based upon those projections, region-wide standards, including storm water quality control, air quality standards, habitat conservation, congestion management standards, etc., are established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the region. All of the City's development standards and regulations are consistent with the region wide standards. The City's standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage standards, traffic standards, habitat and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that development within the City will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact. There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a cumulatively considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. As described above, the project would contribute to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the development is implemented. The County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The CMA had determined, based on the City's growth projections in the General Plan, that these designated roadways will function at acceptable levels of service in the short-term and at build-out. The project is consistent with the City's growth projections, and therefore, the cumulative impacts from the project to the regional circulation system are less than significant. 24 Rev. 01/02/07 With regard to any other potential impacts associated with the project, City standards and regulations will ensure that development of the site will not result in any significant cumulatively considerable impacts. c) Less than Significant Impact. Based upon the fact that future development of the site will comply with all City standards, the project will not result in any direct or indirect substantial adverse environmental effects on human beings. However, the project site is located in an area where human beings are exposed to significant levels of noise generated by traffic on the surrounding streets and aircraft operations at McClellan-Palomar Airport. As discussed above, any potential impacts from noise can be mitigated to a level less than significant. Those mitigation measures will be incorporated as conditions of project approval. The project design and land use is compatible with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport, thus further reducing any impacts as result of airport safety to a level less than significant. Development of the site and structures will be required to comply with all applicable Federal, State, Regional and City regulations, which will ensure that development of the site will not result in adverse impacts on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 25 Rev. 01/02/07 XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 26 Rev. 01/02/07 EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES 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. Transportation Analysis for Carlsbad Health Club. Urban Systems Associates, Inc., April 11, 2007. 3. Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) for Western Athletic Club. Excel Engineering, August 21,2006. 4. Geotechnical Investigation. Proposed Athletic Club. Southwest of Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real. Carlsbad. California (Project no. 600853-002). Leighton Consulting, Inc., June 23, 2006. 5. Acoustical Evaluation, for Pacific Athletic Club (Project File No. 846-06). Wieland Associates, Inc., July 11,2006. 6. Local Facilities Management Plan (Zone 5). City of Carlsbad Growth Management Program, June 17, 1987. 7. McClellan Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, October 4,2004. 8. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad . City of Carlsbad, December 1999. 27 Rev. 01/02/07