HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-12-16; Planning Commission; Resolution 7138
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
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR WESTIN HOTEL AND TIMESHARE,
EIR 15-02, AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE CANDIDATE
FINDINGS OF FACT AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 71-ROOM HOTEL AND 36 UNIT
TIMESHARE BUILDING ON A 3.6-ACRE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
WEST OF THE CROSSINGS DRIVE AND EAST OF MARBRISA DRIVE IN THE
MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 8.
CASE NAME: WESTIN HOTEL AND TIMESHARE
CASE NO.: EIR 15-02
WHEREAS, Grand Pacific Resorts, Inc., “Developer,” has filed a verified application with
the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by the City of Carlsbad, “Owner,” described as
Those portions of Lots F and H of Rancho Agua Hedionda, in the County
of San Diego, State of California, according to Partition Map No. 823,
filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County,
November 16, 1896; and, Lot 9 of City of Carlsbad CT 09-03, in the City
of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to map
thereof No. 15902, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San
Diego County, March 4, 2013
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR 15-02) was prepared in
conjunction with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on December 16, 2015, hold a duly noticed
public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, examining the Project EIR, Candidate Findings of Fact, and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments
received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Project EIR.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows:
A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B. That the Final Project Environmental Impact Report consists of the Final Project
Environmental Impact Report, EIR 15-02, dated December 16, 2015, appendices, written
comments and responses to comments, as amended to include the comments and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7138
PC RESO NO. 7138 -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
documents of those testifying at the public hearing and responses thereto is hereby found
to be in good faith and reason by incorporating a copy of the minutes of said public
hearing into the report, all on file in the Planning Division incorporated by this reference,
and collectively referred to as the “Report.”
C. That the Environmental Impact Report, EIR 15-02, as so amended and evaluated is
recommended for acceptance and certification as the final Environmental Impact Report
and that the final Environmental Impact Report as recommended is adequate and
provides reasonable information on the project and all reasonable and feasible
alternatives thereto, including no project.
D. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission
hereby RECOMMENDS CERTIFICATION of the Environmental Impact Report for the
WESTIN HOTEL AND TIMESHARE, EIR 15-02 and RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the
Candidate Findings of Fact (“CEQA Findings”) attached hereto marked as “Exhibit A” and
incorporated by this reference and of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(“Program”), attached hereto marked as “Exhibit B” and incorporated by this reference;
based on the following findings and subject to the following condition.
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find that the Final Project EIR 15-
02, the Candidate Findings of Fact, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, have
been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the
State EIR Guidelines, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Carlsbad.
2. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed, and considered Final
Project EIR 15-02, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project; the Candidate
Findings of Fact (“Findings” or “CEQA Findings”) attached hereto as “Exhibit A,” and the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“Program”) attached hereto as “Exhibit B,” prior
to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of this project.
3. The Planning Commission finds that Final EIR 15-02 reflects the independent judgment of the City
of Carlsbad Planning Commission.
4. The Planning Commission does accept as its own, incorporate as if set forth in full herein, and
make each and every one of the findings contained in the CEQA Findings (“Exhibit A”), including
feasibility of mitigation measures pursuant to Public Resources Code 21081 and CEQA Guidelines
15091, and infeasibility of project alternatives.
5. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the Program (“Exhibit B”) is designed to ensure that
during project implementation, the Developer and any other responsible parties implement the
project components and comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified in the CEQA
Findings and the Program.
6. The Record of Proceedings for this project consists of The Report, CEQA Findings, and Program;
all reports, applications, memoranda, maps, letters and other planning documents prepared by
the planning consultant, the environmental consultant, and the City of Carlsbad that are before
the decision makers as determined by the City Clerk; all documents submitted by members of
the public and public agencies in connection with the Project EIR; minutes of all public meetings
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE WESTIN HOTEL AND TIMESHARE PROJECT
SCH No. 2015041042
December 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION 1
A. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 1
B. Record of Proceedings 3
II. PROJECT SUMMARY 4
A. Project Location 4
B. Project Description 5
C. Discretionary Actions 5
D. Statement of Objectives 6
III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 6
IV. GENERAL FINDINGS 6
V. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 7
VI. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS 8
A. Findings Regarding Significant Impacts That Can be Mitigated
to Below a Level of Significance (CEQA §21081(a)(1) and
CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(1)) 9
B. Findings Regarding Mitigation Measures Which are the
Responsibility of Another Agency (CEQA §21081(a)(2)) and
CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(2)) 14
C. Findings Regarding Infeasible Mitigation Measures or
Alternatives (CEQA §21081(a)(3) and CEQA Guidelines
§15091(a)(3) 14
D. Findings Regarding Alternatives Considered and Rejected 14
E. Findings Regarding Alternatives Considered In EIR 15
VII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 19
VIII. CONCLUSION 19
-1-
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code §§21000, et seq.)
and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §§15000, et seq.) promulgated
thereunder require that the environmental impacts of a project be examined before a
project is approved. In addition, once significant impacts have been identified, CEQA and
the CEQA Guidelines require that certain Findings be made before project approval. It is
the exclusive discretion of the decision maker certifying the environmental impact report
(EIR) to determine the adequacy of the proposed Findings. Specifically, regarding Findings,
Guidelines §15091 provides:
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has
been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects
of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for
each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the
rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect as identified in the Final EIR.
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction
of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such
changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be
adopted by such other agency.
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for
highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
(b) The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial
evidence in the record.
(c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the
finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with
identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in
subdivision (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified
mitigation measures and project alternatives.
(d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall
also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has
either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or
-2-
substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must
be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other
measures.
(e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents
or other materials which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which
its decision is based.
(f) A statement made pursuant to §15093 does not substitute for the findings
required by this section.
The “changes or alterations” referred to in CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(1) above, that are
required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant
environmental effects of the project (a.k.a. “project design features”), may include a wide
variety of measures or actions as set forth in CEQA Guidelines §15370, including:
(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an
action.
(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation.
(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted
environment.
(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations during the life of the action.
(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources
or environments.
Should approval of the project nevertheless result in significant impacts, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations (SOCs) must be prepared. The statement provides the lead
agency’s views on the ultimate balancing of the merits of approving a project despite its
unavoidable environmental risks. Regarding the SOCs, CEQA Guidelines §15093 provides:
(a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the
economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide
or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its
unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the
project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits,
including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed
project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse
environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.”
-3-
(b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence
of significant effects which are identified in the Final EIR but are not avoided
or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific
reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information
in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported
by substantial evidence in the record.
(c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement
should be included in the record of the project approval and should be
mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute
for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091.
Following its independent review, it is exclusively the discretion of the decision-maker
certifying the Final EIR to make a final determination regarding the adequacy of the
proposed Findings and SOCs.
Having received, reviewed, and considered the Final EIR for the Westin Hotel and
Timeshare Project, State Clearinghouse No. 2015041042 as well as all other information in
the Record of Proceedings on this matter, the following Findings are hereby adopted by the
City in its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency, and the Final EIR is certified as being
completed in compliance with CEQA. These Findings set forth the environmental basis for
current and subsequent discretionary actions to be undertaken by the City and responsible
agencies for the implementation of the project. The Findings presented herein are based on
substantial evidence in the entire record before the City and reflect the City’s independent
judgment and analysis as the project CEQA Lead Agency. References to the Draft EIR and
Final EIR set forth in these Findings are for ease of reference and are not intended to
provide an exhaustive list of the evidence relied upon for the Findings.
B. Record of Proceedings
For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the project
consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum:
The Notice of Preparation (NOP) and all other public notices issued by the City in
conjunction with the project;
Comments received on the NOP;
The Final EIR for the project;
The Draft EIR;
All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the
public review comment period on the Draft EIR;
-4-
All responses to written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public
during the public review comment period on the Draft EIR;
All written and verbal public testimony presented during a noticed public hearing
for the proposed project at which such testimony was taken;
All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference or cited to
in the Draft EIR and the Final EIR, including all references identified in
Section 11.0 of the Final EIR;
Matters of common knowledge to the City, including but not limited to federal, state,
and local laws and regulations;
Any documents expressly cited in these Findings;
City staff reports prepared for this project and any exhibits thereto;
Project permit conditions, findings, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP);
Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public
Resources Code §21167.6(e);
Additionally, the Draft EIR and related technical studies were made available for review
during the public review period at the following public libraries:
Carlsbad City Library Georgina Cole Library
1775 Dove Lane 1250 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92011 Carlsbad, CA 92008
II. PROJECT SUMMARY
A. Project Location
The project site is located on a 3.69-acre site located north of Palomar Airport Road, south
of Cannon Road, and east of the LEGOLAND Resort within the City of Carlsbad (City).
Regional access to the project site is provided by Interstate 5, located approximately one
mile to the west of the project site. The Agua Hedionda Lagoon is located approximately
three-quarters of a mile north of the project site and McClellan–Palomar Airport is located
approximately one mile east of the project site.
-5-
B. Project Description
The project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Local Coastal Program
Amendment to change the property land use category of Unplanned Area (UA), Planned
Industrial (PI), and Office (O) to Travel/Recreation Commercial (TR) and to change the
zoning from Exclusive Agriculture (EA), Planned Industrial (PI), and Office (O) to
Commercial Tourist with a Qualified Overlay (C-T-Q). Development of the project site
would include removal of an existing municipal 1,500,000-gallon water tank, grading of the
property resulting in an export of approximately 14,610 cubic yards, and the subsequent
development of a four-story, 81,200-square-foot 71-room hotel building, and a four-story,
62,680-square-foot 36-unit timeshare building including an underground garage.
C. Discretionary Actions
The following discretionary actions are being considered by the City Council:
General Plan Amendment (GPA 14-03)
Zone Change (ZC 14-02)
Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 14-03)
Tentative Tract Map (CT 14-08)
Non-Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD 15-01)
Conditional Use Permit (CUP 15-03)
Site Development Plan (SDP 14-11)
Coastal Development Permit (CDP 14-29)
Hillside Development Permit (HDP 14-06)
Specific Plan Amendment (SP 207(K))
In addition, the City may use the Final EIR to approve other discretionary actions for
which the environmental impacts have been analyzed therein. The Final EIR may also be
used by responsible and trustee agencies in connection with project-related
approvals/conditions including, without limitation, conformance to the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NDPES) Construction General Permit (State Water
Resources Control Board/Regional Water Quality Control Board [SWRCB/RWQCB]) and
Municipal Storm Water Permit (RWQCB).
-6-
D. Statement of Objectives
As described in Section 3.1 of the Final EIR, the following objectives are identified for the
proposed project:
Develop the City-owned property with a use that would generate long-term revenue
for the City by means of leasehold rent, transient occupancy tax (TOT), sales tax,
and property tax revenues.
Support increased tourism and provide additional leisure and recreational options to
visitors of the City.
Develop a four-star hotel to address an underserved market.
Develop a project that incorporates a “life style brand” hotel that will benefit The
Crossings Golf Course by generating additional green fees.
Provide additional tourist accommodations that integrate with the existing Sheraton
and MarBrisa resorts adjacent to the project site.
Develop a project that is architecturally compatible with the surrounding properties.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
A NOP, prepared in compliance with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, was
distributed for the project from April 13, 2015 to May 12, 2015. The NOP, associated
comments, and responses are included in the FEIR as Appendix A.
The Draft EIR for the proposed project was then prepared and circulated for review and
comment by the public, agencies, and organizations for a public review period that began on
July 29, 2015 and concluded on September 11, 2015. A Notice of Completion of the Draft
EIR was sent to the State Clearinghouse and the Draft EIR was circulated to state agencies
for review through the State Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research (SCH No.
2015041042). A Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR was mailed to organizations and
parties expressing interest in the project, filed with the City Clerk, and published in the
San Diego Daily Transcript. Public comments received on the Draft EIR and responses to
those comments have been incorporated into the Final EIR as Appendix L.
IV. GENERAL FINDINGS
The City hereby finds as follows:
The City is the “Lead Agency” for the proposed project evaluated in the Final EIR.
-7-
The Draft EIR and Final EIR were prepared in compliance with CEQA and the
CEQA Guidelines.
The City has independently reviewed and analyzed the Draft EIR and Final EIR,
and these documents reflect the independent judgment of the City Council and the
City.
The City has adopted a MMRP for the proposed project. That MMRP is included as
Chapter 10 of the Final EIR and is considered part of the Record of Proceedings for
the proposed project.
In determining whether the proposed project has a significant impact on the
environment and in adopting these Findings pursuant to §21081 of CEQA, the City
has based its decision on substantial evidence and complied with CEQA §§21081.5
and 21082.2 and CEQA Guidelines 15091(b).
Pursuant to Senate Bill 18, the City provided consultation opportunity with Native
American tribes. Meetings with the City, applicant, and representatives of the San
Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians occurred on several occasions both prior to and
after public review of the Draft EIR. The proposed mitigation plan and alternative
foundation design to minimize potential cultural resource impacts was refined with
input from tribal representatives.
The City reviewed the comments received on the Draft EIR and Final EIR and the
responses thereto and has determined that neither the comments received nor the
responses to such comments or associated Final EIR revisions add significant new
information regarding environmental impacts to the Draft EIR or Final EIR. The
changes to the Final EIR would not result in any new significant environmental
impact or increase the severity of an environmental impact.
The City has based its actions on full appraisal of all viewpoints, including all
comments received up to the date of adoption of these Findings concerning the
environmental impacts identified and analyzed in the Final EIR.
V. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
In identifying the following impacts that are less than significant without mitigation, the
City has considered project design features, as well as applicable plans, programs,
regulations, and policies. The Final EIR concludes that the proposed project will have no
significant impacts and require no mitigation measures with respect to the following
issues:
Aesthetics
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
-8-
Air Quality
Biological Resources (Sensitive Habitats, Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters,
Wildlife Corridors, Local Ordinances)
Cultural and Paleontological Resources (Historic Resources only)
Geology and Soils
Greenhouse Gas
Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use (Physically Divide an Established Community, Conflicts with Applicable
Plans and Zoning, and Local Coastal Program)
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Transportation and Circulation
Utilities
VI. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
In making each of the Findings herein, the City has considered the project design features
and plans, programs, and policies identified throughout the Final EIR. The project design
features described throughout the Final EIR are part of the project that the City has
considered, and the project may only be constructed in accordance with the project design
features regardless of whether they are explicitly made conditions of the project permits.
The plans, programs, and policies discussed in the Final EIR are existing regulatory plans
and programs, which the project is subject to regardless of whether they are explicitly made
conditions of the project permits.
The CEQA Guidelines state that an agency's Findings must be "accompanied by a brief
explanation of the rationale for each Finding" (14 California Code of Regulations
§15091(a)). This requirement applies to the Findings relating to mitigation of significant
impacts, mitigation measures under the jurisdiction of another agency, and infeasibility of
mitigation measures and alternatives required under Public Resource Code §21081(a) and
-9-
14 California Code of Regulations §15091(a), (c). Every citation to the Final EIR or other
documents identified in these Findings is hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set
forth herein.
A. Findings Regarding Significant Impacts That Can be Mitigated to Below
a Level of Significance (CEQA §21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines
§15091(a)(1))
The City, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR, and
the Record of Proceedings pursuant to CEQA §21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines
§15091(a)(1), adopts the following Findings regarding the significant effects of the proposed
project, as follows:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
would mitigate avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as
identified in the Final EIR as described below:
Biological Resources
Sensitive Wildlife Species
Potentially Significant Effect
Potentially significant impacts to sensitive wildlife could result during project grading and
construction. Specifically, construction during the breeding season could adversely impact
nesting or migratory birds, including raptors that may occupy the on-site eucalyptus trees.
Additionally, construction during the breeding season of the coastal California gnatcatcher
would generate noise that could disrupt nesting or breeding activities in the off-site coastal
sage scrub habitat.
Facts in Support of Finding
The potentially significant impacts to sensitive wildlife shall be mitigated to below a level of
significance with implementation of the mitigation measures identified as BIO-1 and BIO-
2 in Section 4.4.3.2 of the Final EIR.
BIO-1 requires: either construction shall occur outside the bird nesting and breeding
season (February 15 to September 15) or pre-construction surveys shall be conducted to
determine the absence or presence of nests and, if nests are present, implementation of nest
avoidance measures. Nest avoidance measures consist of providing a fenced protective
buffer of at least 500 feet from active nests of listed species, and 300 feet from other
sensitive bird species. All construction activity shall be prohibited within the protective
buffer.
-10-
BIO-2 requires: either construction shall occur outside the coastal California gnatcatcher
breeding season (between March 15 and August 15), or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) protocol pre-construction nest surveys shall be conducted and nest avoidance
measures shall be implemented if nests are found. For coastal California gnatcatcher
avoidance measures, a qualified acoustician must complete a study showing that noise
generated by construction activities will not exceed 60 A-weighted decibels (dB(A)) hourly
average at the edge of occupied habitat prior to construction, and take of active nests shall
be prohibited.
Rationale and Conclusion
Impacts to raptors, migratory, nesting birds, or coastal California gnatcatcher would be
mitigated through implementation of BIO-1 and BIO-2, which require grading and
construction to occur outside the bird breeding season. If grading must occur during the
breeding/nesting season, pre-construction surveys would be required to determine absence
or presence. If present, appropriate buffers would be implemented to avoid direct impacts.
Measure BIO-2 would further require noise analysis and monitoring to ensure that noise
levels do not exceed 60 dB(A) hourly equivalent sound level (Leq) within 500 feet of habitat
occupied by the coastal California gnatcatcher. A fenced protective buffer and supervision
by a qualified biologist would also be required. Project impacts to sensitive wildlife would be
mitigated to below a level of significance. Implementation of these mitigation measures is
assured through their incorporation into the project’s MMRP.
Reference: Final EIR Section 4.4.3.
Cultural Resources
Archaeological Resources
Potentially Significant Effect
The project site contains portions of a significant archaeological site, CA-SDI-8797 Locus C,
which was previously capped in conjunction with a prior project and includes a subsurface
archaeological deposit and human burial(s). Development of the project site would result in
some disturbance to CA-SDI-8797 Locus C; however, impacts to known human burials
would be avoided. Disturbance of CA-SDI-8797 Locus C would be considered a significant
impact. In addition, project grading could result in significant impacts to currently
unknown and buried prehistoric/archaeological resources on-site.
Facts in Support of Finding
The project’s potentially significant impacts to the capped portion of CA-SDI-8797 Locus C
would be avoided to the maximum extent practicable through the use of an alternative
foundation design that would allow the structure in the location of CA-SDI-8797 Locus C to
essentially float over the ground surface by transferring the weight of the structure deep
-11-
into the earth by installing concrete piles, or caissons. The structure would require 47
caissons to support the hotel foundation, and each caisson would require disturbance of an
approximately 1 meter x 1 meter section of earth. Additionally, installation of the elevator
pit and basement area would require penetration of the capped portion of CA-SDI-8797
Locus C, which would be a potentially significant impact.
Implementation of the data recovery program as detailed in ARC-1 would ensure that any
cultural material present in the area of SDI-8797 Locus C would be recovered and reburied
within the project site to retain the cultural value of the resource on-site. The data recovery
program would include hand excavation of 100 percent of the material extracted from the 1
meter x 1 meter test units for each caisson; data recovery of the basement and elevator pit
at a minimum of 15 percent of the excavated material, up to 100 percent of the excavated
material depending on the extent of cultural materials encountered during data recovery
for caissons; and additional data recovery within the fenced area around the water tank
that has never been subject to subsurface archaeological testing. Implementation of ARC-1
would ensure that the research potential of the site has been exhausted and that any
cultural material encountered during data recovery would be identified and reburied within
the on-site open space easement to preserve cultural material within the site.
The project’s potentially significant impacts to currently unknown and buried
prehistoric/archaeological resources on-site would be mitigated through implementation of
mitigation measure ARC-2. Specifically, ARC-2 requires the preparation of a monitoring
plan and the presence of the Archaeological Monitor and Native American Monitor from the
San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians during grading/excavation/ trenching activities that
could result in impacts to archaeological resources as identified in the monitoring plan.
Prior to any construction permits, the City shall verify that the requirements for
archaeological monitoring and Native American monitoring have been noted on the
appropriate construction plans. The Qualified Archaeologist and Native American Monitor
shall attend any grading/excavation-related preconstruction meetings to make comments
and/or suggestions concerning the archaeological monitoring program. Included in this
mitigation measure is the requirement that the Archaeological Monitor shall document
field activity and if a discovery is made, the monitors shall divert construction activities
from the area of discovery. After following the identified protocol to determine significance,
either a data recovery program shall be implemented for significant resources or less than
significant artifacts shall be collected, curated, and documented in the Final Monitoring
Report.
If human remains are discovered, work shall stop in that area, and the procedures as set
forth in the California Public Resources Code (Sec. 5097.98) and State Health and Safety
Code (Sec. 7050.5) shall be followed. Additional details of this mitigation measure are
included in Section 4.4.4.3 of the Final EIR.
Mitigation measure ARC-3 would provide protection in perpetuity through an open space
easement for the known archaeological resources on-site. While the project would impact a
-12-
portion of CA-SDI-8797 Locus C through installation of caissons and a basement and
elevator pit, the majority of this site would remain undisturbed. Measure ARC-3 would
ensure that no further disturbance to the archaeological site would occur after project
construction.
Rationale and Conclusion
The actions making up mitigation measure ARC-1 identified in Section 4.4.4.3 of the Final
EIR assure the recovery and recording of important prehistoric/archaeological information,
which may otherwise be lost during construction of the proposed project. The requirements
of ARC-2 ensure that an Archaeological Monitor and Native American Monitor from the
San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians would be present for all grading activities and
assure that grading shall be halted or diverted should any discovery be made. In the event
that a discovery of prehistoric or archaeological resources occurs during grading for the
proposed project, the determination of significance shall be made and the mitigation
measure outlined in the Final EIR shall be implemented. ARC-3 would provide protection
in perpetuity for the known archaeological resources on-site (CA-SDI-8797 Locus C). These
mitigation measures would reduce potentially significant impacts to archaeological
resources to a less than significant level. Implementation of these mitigation measures are
assured through their incorporation into the project’s MMRP.
Reference: Final EIR Section 4.4.4
Paleontological Resources
Potentially Significant Effect
The project site is underlain by Santiago Formation and Lindavista Formation, which have
high and moderate paleontological resource sensitivity, respectively. Project grading would
involve cut and removal of approximately 14,610 cubic yards of material; as a result, there
is a potential for grading to destroy buried fossil remains, resulting in a significant impact
to paleontological resources.
Facts in Support of Finding
The project’s potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources will be mitigated to
below a level of significance with implementation of the mitigation measure identified in
Section 4.4.6.3 of the Final EIR. Implementation of the mitigation measure PAL-1 shall
require paleontological monitoring requirements to be noted on the appropriate
construction plans, a monitoring plan be prepared prior to the start of construction to
identify areas that shall be monitored, and presence of a paleontological monitor on-site
during grading. In the event of a discovery, grading activities in the area of discovery are
required to stop. The resource is required to be studied so that a determination of
significance can be made. If the resource is significant, appropriate collection and curation
is required. Upon completion of construction, a Draft Monitoring Report shall be prepared
-13-
that describes the results, analysis, and conclusions of all phases of the Paleontological
Monitoring Program. Additional details of this measure are found in Section 4.4.6.3 of the
Final EIR.
Rationale and Conclusion
These individual actions making up mitigation measure PAL-1 assure the recording and
recovery of important paleontological information, which may otherwise be lost during
construction of the proposed project. The requirement for a monitor to be present for all
construction activities, along with the specified processes, assures that grading will be
halted or diverted should any discovery be made. Implementation of the mitigation
measure assures that significance testing occurs immediately and that important
discoveries are reported and/or collected. Because the discovery of any paleontological
resources will not occur until the grading for project construction is underway, it is not
feasible to pursue preservation in place as a mitigation measure in the event of the
discovery of significant resources. This mitigation measure will reduce potentially
significant impacts to paleontological resources to less than significant. Implementation of
this mitigation measure is assured through its incorporation into the project’s MMRP.
Reference: Final EIR Section 4.4.6
Land Use
Multiple Habitat Conservation Program/Habitat Management Plan Consistency
Potentially Significant Effect
While the project would not result in any direct impacts to the adjacent Habitat
Management Plan (HMP) Preserve, the project would have the potential to generate noise
during construction that could indirectly impact the coastal California gnatcatcher inside
the adjacent hardline preserve. This would result in a significant impact related to the
City’s Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP)/HMP.
Facts in Support of Finding
Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-2 would reduce potentially significant impacts
to the coastal California gnatcatcher inside the adjacent HMP hardline preserve to below a
level of significance. As stated above, BIO-2 requires construction to occur outside the
coastal California gnatcatcher breeding season (between March 15 and August 15) or
USFWS protocol pre-construction nest surveys and nest avoidance measures. For coastal
California gnatcatcher avoidance measures, a Qualified Acoustician must complete a study
showing that noise generated by construction activities will not exceed 60 dB(A) hourly
average at the edge of occupied habitat prior to construction and prohibit take of active
nests. These measures will ensure that no indirect impacts to coastal California
gnatcatcher occur in the adjacent HMP preserve.
-14-
Rationale and Conclusion
Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-2 requires noise analysis and monitoring to
ensure that noise levels do not exceed 60 dB(A) hourly Leq within 500 feet of habitat
occupied by the coastal California gnatcatcher. A fenced protective buffer and supervision
by a Qualified Biologist would also be required. Implementation of this mitigation measure
is assured through its incorporation into the project’s MMRP.
Reference: Final EIR Section 4.8.6
B. Findings Regarding Mitigation Measures Which are the Responsibility
of Another Agency (CEQA §21081(a)(2)) and CEQA Guidelines
§15091(a)(2))
The City, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR, finds
pursuant to CEQA §21081(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(2) that there are no
changes or alterations which could reduce significant impacts that are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency.
C. Findings Regarding Infeasible Mitigation Measures or Alternatives
(CEQA §21081(a)(3) and CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(3))
The City, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR and
the Record of Proceedings, and pursuant to Public Resource Code §21081(a)(3) and State
CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(3), finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or
other considerations, including considerations of the provision of employment opportunities
for highly trained workers, make infeasible alternatives identified in the Final EIR (SCH
No. 2015041042).
D. Findings Regarding Alternatives Considered and Rejected
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15126.6, the range of potential alternative to the proposed
project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most the basic objectives of the
project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. An EIR
should briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed. The EIR
should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency, but were
rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying
the lead agency’s determination. Additional information explaining the choice of alternative
may be included in the administrative record. Among the factors that may be used to
eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are (i) failure to meet most of
the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant
environmental impacts.
Alternatives considered but rejected include the Alternate Location Alternative and the No
Project/Plan and Zone Consistent Alternative. The Alternate Location Alternative would
-15-
develop the project in an alternate location in proximity to the existing Sheraton and
MarBrisa Resorts and nearby tourist attractions including LEGOLAND Resort. The No
Project/Plan and Zone Consistent Alternative would develop an industrial/office building on
the project site, consistent with the existing Plan and Zone, and would not require a
General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, or Rezone.
The Alternate Location Alternative was dismissed because no other site(s) under the City’s
ownership in the vicinity of the existing Sheraton and MarBrisa Resorts were identified
that could provide a development that would meet the majority of the project objectives.
Even if property could be acquired by the City that would be in a suitable location, the need
to purchase additional property would negate the project objective of developing the
existing City-owned property to provide revenue for the City. The No Project/Plan and Zone
Consistent Alternative was dismissed because it would not meet the main project objectives
of providing tourist opportunities through development of a hotel.
E. Findings Regarding Alternatives Considered in EIR
The Final EIR examined three alternatives: No Project/No Development Alternative, No
Project/Alternative Consistent with Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course EIR, and Reduced
Development Alternative. These project alternatives are summarized below, along with the
findings relevant to each alternative.
Social Infeasibility/Other Considerations
Under CEQA, "[i]t is the policy of the state that public agencies should not approve projects
as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available
which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects . . .
The Legislature further finds and declares that in the event specific economic, social, or
other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures,
individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.”
(Public Resources Code §21002; emphasis added.) Moreover, CEQA defines "feasible" as
"capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time,
taking into account, economic, social, legal, and technological factors." (CEQA Guidelines §
15364; emphasis added.)
Finding for All Alternatives
The City, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR and
the Record of Proceedings, and pursuant to Public Resource Code §21081(a)(3) and CEQA
Guidelines §15091(a)(3), hereby finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or
other considerations, including considerations of the provision of employment opportunities
for highly trained workers, make infeasible the project alternatives identified in the Final
EIR as described below. More, specifically, based upon the administrative record for the
-16-
project, the City makes the following findings concerning the alternatives to the proposed
project:
No Project/ No Development Alternative
Summary Description of Alternative
The No Project /No Development Alternative addresses the situation that would occur if the
proposed project did not go forward and the project site remained in its existing condition.
Rationale for Selecting this Alternative for Analysis
This alternative was selected for analysis, because it allows decision makers to compare the
impacts of approving the project with the impacts of not approving the project and is
required to be analyzed and considered pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15126.6(e)(3)(B).
Potentially Significant Effects and Grounds for Infeasibility
Under this alternative, the project site would remain in its current undeveloped condition.
Continued use of the project site in its existing condition would result in no significant
impacts. However, this alternative would not meet the basic project objectives or provide
any fiscal benefit to the City through development of the City-owned property. Therefore,
the grounds for infeasibility are that it does not meet basic project objectives and it conflicts
with the City’s goals for developing the site to provide a fiscal benefit to the City.
Facts in Support of Finding
While adoption of the No Project/No Development/) Alternative would avoid the proposed
project’s significant impacts, the majority of the project objectives would not be attained.
Specifically, it would not generate long-term revenue for the City or provide a hotel to
support tourism. Since this alternative would not meet most of the project objectives, it is
considered infeasible.
Reference: Final EIR Section 9.2
No Project/Alternative Consistent With Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course EIR
Summary Description of Alternative
The No Project/Alternative Consistent with Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course EIR would
develop the site with a 21,000-square-foot conference center on the 2.24-acre City-owned
property. The Carlsbad Municipal Water District water tank would remain as is and not be
removed. This alternative would reduce the overall footprint of the development. Thus, this
alternative would incrementally reduce impacts compared to the project, but would not
-17-
avoid the biological, cultural, and paleontological resources and land use impacts of the
project.
Rationale for Selecting this Alternative for Analysis
This alternative was selected for analysis because it represents a development scenario
consistent with what was analyzed in the environmental document prepared for
development of the Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course. As the No Project/No Development
Alternative already analyzed a no development scenario, this alternative allows decision
makers to compare the impacts of approving a project that was originally envisioned as part
of the Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course project.
Potentially Significant Effects and Ground for Infeasibility
Due to its reduced footprint, this alternative would result in a reduction in the significance
of impacts to the known archaeological site. All other potentially significant impacts of the
project would be the same for this alternative including biological resources, paleontological
resources, and land use. There would be potentially significant impacts to unknown and
buried human remains that would require mitigation; however, this alternative could likely
reduce or avoid potentially significant impacts to CA-SDI-8797 Locus C. However, this
alterative would not meet the basic objective of providing a hotel to serve the tourist
population.
Facts in Support of Finding
The No Project/Alternative Consistent with Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course EIR would not
meet the project objectives because it would not provide a hotel to serve the tourist
population. Additionally, while a conference center at the site would generate some
revenue, there would be no transient occupancy tax revenue generated. Accordingly, as the
this alternative would not fully meet most of the project objectives, it is considered
infeasible.
Reference: Final EIR Section 9.3
Reduced Development Alternative
Summary Description of Alternative
The Reduced Development Alternative would construct the proposed timeshare structures
and would reduce the footprint of the hotel by one-half by reducing the number of units. By
reducing the footprint of the hotel, it is anticipated that the alternative could significantly
avoid impacts to the archaeological site. Grading for the alternative would be similar to the
project because a majority of grading is proposed to allow access to the site from The
Crossings Drive into the subterranean parking garage for the timeshare.
-18-
Rationale for Selecting this Alternative for Analysis
This alternative was selected for analysis to provide an alternative that would meet most of
the basic project objectives while reducing the potentially significant impacts to
archaeological resources. This alternative would provide the decision makers an
opportunity to consider a reduced project that could potentially avoid and preserve in place
the majority of the archaeological site.
Potentially Significant Effects and Ground for Infeasibility
Due to its substantially reduced footprint of the hotel, this alternative would result in a
reduction in the severity of impacts to cultural resources as compared to the project.
Specifically, the majority of the archaeological site could be preserved in place and not
disturbed. All other potentially significant impacts of the project would be the same for this
alternative, including: biological resources, paleontological resources, and land use. This
alternative would still generate revenue for the City, including transient occupancy tax,
although revenues would be reduced due to the reduced size of the hotel. This alternative
would also support tourism and would potentially benefit The Crossings Golf Course by
generating additional green fees; however, it could potentially not provide a top tier hotel to
address an underserved market. Reduction of the number of hotel room by 50% would
violate the franchise agreement with the brand, that is also associated with the adjacent
existing hotel, and would eliminate the possibility of integrating the project with the
adjacent existing hotel and hotel facilities. Therefore, the grounds for infeasibility of this
alternative are that it does not fully meet the main project objectives.
Facts in Support of Finding
The Reduced Development Alternative would only partially meet Objective 1 because it
would generate revenue for the City, but the development would not maximize the use of
the City-owned property and would generate reduced revenue compared to the project. The
alternative would support increased tourism and additional leisure opportunities to visitors
of the City and would meet Objective 2, although to a lesser extent than the project. The
alternative would not meet Objectives 3 or 4 because it would not develop a hotel. The
alternative could meet Objectives 5 and 6 because the alternative could be designed to
integrate with adjacent resorts in an architecturally compatible fashion. In summary, this
alternative was proper to study because it met some of the project objectives; however, it
would only fully meet two objectives (5 and 6) and partially meet two objectives that are
most important to the City, while not meeting two key project objectives related to
developing a hotel. Accordingly, as this alternative would not fully meet most of the project
objectives, it is considered infeasible.
Reference: Final EIR Section 9.4
-19-
VII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, CEQA requires the decision-making agency
to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits,
including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its
unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project.
All significant impacts of the project would be mitigated to below a level of significance;
therefore a statement of overriding considerations pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15093 is not required.
VIII. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the City concludes that all of the significant impacts of the
proposed project would be mitigated to below a level of significance. Changes to the project
have been incorporated to avoid and substantially lessen potential impacts to cultural
resources. . Therefore, the City has adopted these Findings.
EXHIBIT B
Page 1
Westin Hotel and Timeshare Project
Carlsbad, California
SCH #2015041042
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 21081.6, requires that a
mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) be adopted upon certification of an
environmental impact report (EIR) to ensure that the mitigation measures are
implemented. The MMRP specifies what the mitigation is, the entity responsible for
monitoring the program, and when in the process it should be accomplished.
The proposed Westin Hotel and Timeshare project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zone
Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to change the property land use category to
Travel/Recreation Commercial (TR) and the zoning to Commercial Tourist with a Qualified
Overlay (C-T-Q). Development of the project would include removal of an existing municipal
1,500,000-gallon water tank, grading, and the subsequent development of a four-story,
81,200-square-foot 71-room hotel building, and a four-story, 62,680-square-foot 36-unit
timeshare building with an underground garage. The hotel structure would be constructed
using an alternative foundation system known as Cast-In-Drilled Hole (CIDH) Pile
foundation in order to minimize potential impacts to cultural resources. The project site is
located on two parcels totaling 3.14 acres in addition to 0.55 acre of adjacent off-site areas.
The Final EIR focuses on issues determined to be potentially significant by the City including
aesthetics; air quality; biological resources; cultural and paleontological resources;
greenhouse gas emissions; hazardous materials, airport safety, and wildfire; hydrology and
water quality; land use; noise; public services; transportation and circulation; and utilities
and service systems. Agricultural resources, geology and soils, mineral resources, and
population and housing were addressed in lesser detail in Chapter 8, Effects Found Not to be
Significant. After analysis, potentially significant impacts requiring mitigation were
identified for land use (Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan/Habitat Management Plan
consistency), biological resources, cultural resources, and paleontological resources. The
environmental analysis concluded that the potentially significant impacts associated with
land use (Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan/Habitat Management Plan consistency),
biological resources, cultural resources, and paleontological resources could be avoided or
reduced through implementation of recommended mitigation measures.
The following table summarized the potentially significant project impacts and lists the
associated mitigation measures and monitoring efforts necessary to ensure measures are
properly implemented. All mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR are
recommended as conditions of project approval and are stated herein in language
appropriate for such conditions.
EXHIBIT B
Page 2
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Timeframe of Mitigation
Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Wildlife Species. Project grading and
construction would result in potentially
significant direct impacts to wildlife
species including raptors and
migratory or nesting birds located
within the project footprint.
Coastal California gnatcatcher, raptors
and migratory and nesting birds were
determined to have the potential to
occur in the project area due to the
existence of suitable habitat. Indirect
impacts from construction noise to
coastal California gnatcatcher in the
adjacent HMP hardline preserve and
potentially nesting raptors on the
project site would be significant.
BIO-1: Pre-construction Surveys. Prior to the issuance of a Notice to Proceed for a subdivision, or any construction permits, such as
demolition, grading, or building, or beginning any construction-related activity, the City shall verify that the following project
requirements regarding nesting and migratory birds, including raptors, are shown on the construction plans:
To avoid any direct impacts to nesting or migratory birds, including raptors, removal of habitat that has potential to support
active nests should occur outside of the breeding season for these species (February 15 to September 15). If removal of habitat
must occur during the breeding season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey to determine the presence or
absence of nesting birds within the proposed area within three calendar days prior to the start of construction activities,
including the removal of vegetation.
If nests of migratory birds or raptors are located, they shall be fenced with a protective buffer of at least 500 feet from active
nests of listed species, and 300 feet from other sensitive bird species. All construction activity shall be prohibited within the
protective buffer.
BIO-2: Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys. Prior to the issuance of a Notice to Proceed for a subdivision, or any construction
permits, such as demolition, grading, or building, or beginning any construction-related activity, the City shall verify that the following
project requirements regarding coastal California gnatcatcher are shown on the construction plans:
No clearing, grubbing, grading, or other construction activities shall occur between March 15 and August 15, the breeding
season of coastal California gnatcatcher, unless the following requirements have been met:
A biologist possessing a valid Endangered Species Act Section 10(a)(1)(A) Recovery Permit shall conduct coastal California
gnatcatcher surveys within 500 feet of potential breeding habitat in the HMP Preserve that would be subject to construction
noise levels exceeding 60 decibels [dB(A)] hourly average. Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the protocol survey
guidelines established by the USFWS (1997). A total of three surveys shall be conducted no less than one week apart, with the
last of these surveys occurring no more than three days prior to construction. If coastal California gnatcatchers are present, then
the following conditions must be met:
a. An analysis showing that noise generated by construction activities would not exceed 60 dB(A) hourly average within 500
feet of occupied habitat shall be completed by a qualified acoustician and approved by the City Manager or designated
appointee. Prior to the commencement of construction activities between March 15 and August 15, areas restricted from
such activities shall be fenced with a protective buffer under the supervision of a qualified biologist; or
b. Between March 15 and August 15, no construction activities shall occur within any portion of the site where construction
activities would result in noise levels exceeding 60 dB(A) hourly average within 500 feet of occupied coastal California
gnatcatcher habitat. Construction noise shall be monitored to maintain a threshold at or below 60 dB(A) hourly average
sound level within 500 feet of occupied coastal California gnatcatcher breeding habitat. If noise levels supersede the
threshold, the construction array shall be changed or noise attenuation measures shall be implemented to ensure that noise
levels do not exceed the threshold.
Prior to any construction
permits, including but not
limited to, the first Grading
Permit, Demolition Plans/
Permits and Building Plans/
Permits, but prior to the first
pre-construction meeting.
City of Carlsbad
EXHIBIT B
Page 3
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Timeframe of Mitigation
Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Archaeological Resources. The
project would require grading and/or
excavation that could result in a
substantial adverse change to a portion
of CA-SDI-8797 Locus C, which is
identified as a significant
archaeological site pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.4. Impacts to
this site would be significant.
ARC-1: Data Recovery Program. In order to mitigate for potential impacts to significant cultural resources associated with CA-
SDI-8797 Locus C, a data recovery program developed and implemented by a qualified archaeologist shall be prepared and
implemented. The data recovery program will include two methodologies based upon location. Under Section B, the data recovery
program will be organized for the mitigation and impacts at the location of caissons within the boundaries of the cultural deposit and at
the location of the planned basement and elevator pit excavations. The data recovery program shall include research design, excavation,
laboratory analysis, a report of findings, and curation of artifacts as detailed below.
A. Research Design
Prior to the initiation of any archaeological mitigation program, a detailed research design must be prepared and submitted to
the City of Carlsbad that provides discussions regarding the field and laboratory elements of the data recovery program,
including the data recovery elements detailed in Section B, below. The research design shall be designed to answer research
questions and add to the overall regional prehistoric data. These questions include: the chronological placement of the site in
San Diego regional prehistory and site occupation; site function; subsistence systems practiced at the site; and the inclusion of
the site in trade and exchange networks in San Diego County and southern California. To the extent prior studies have
addressed research design, appropriate references can be made. The City shall review and approve the research design prior to
the initiation of the data recovery field program.
B. Excavation
The foundation for the hotel structure will be supported by caissons drilled into the underlying formational soil. Where caissons
will penetrate through the concrete cap that covers the cultural deposit, the following data recovery program shall be
implemented.
1. Data Recovery for Caissons Located Within Cultural Deposits
Where cultural deposits will be impacted by caisson drilling, midden soils shall be archaeologically hand-excavated. All data
recovery units shall measure one square meter and shall be excavated in 10-centimeter levels to a depth 10 centimeters
below the lowest layer of any cultural deposit. The layer of non-cultural fill soil that overlays a concrete cap that protects the
cultural deposit may be mechanically removed prior to the initiation of a data recovery unit at each caisson location within
the cultural deposit. When the concrete cap over the archaeological deposit is revealed, it shall be saw-cut to establish the
one-square-meter data recovery unit position over the cultural deposit. Once the concrete cap section is removed, the
archaeological data recovery unit shall be hand excavated prior to the drilling of the caisson. Practical measures shall be
taken to ensure that the archaeological data recovery unit does not collapse and cause disturbance to adjacent cultural
deposits. Plywood shoring may be used to secure the walls of the excavation prior to and during the caisson drilling that
will follow the archaeological excavations.
The archaeological data recovery shall be required for the cultural deposit located below the concrete cap. The ultimate
depth of the cultural deposit will vary across the site, but all archaeological excavations shall be required to fully excavate
the entire depth of the cultural deposit to mitigate impacts at each caisson where a cultural deposit is present. However, if
the concrete cap is removed at any caisson location and no cultural deposit is observed, a test will still be required, but will
only be excavated to a depth of 50 centimeters to ensure that cultural deposits are not present.
All archaeological excavations shall follow the City’s guideline requirements for such investigations. All soil extracted from
each unit shall be wet-screened through one-eighth-inch mesh to recover any fragments of potential human remains and
archaeological materials. The soil associated with the cultural deposit shall remain on the property and shall not be
exported. Non-cultural soil may be exported from the site, but must be determined to be non-cultural by the archaeologist
and Native American monitor prior to export. Screened soil from the archaeological excavations may be used to backfill the
excavation units once caisson placement has been achieved.
Prior to any construction
permits, including but not
limited to, the first Grading
Permit, Demolition
Plans/Permits and Building
Plans/ Permits, but prior to the
first pre-construction meeting.
City of Carlsbad
EXHIBIT B
Page 4
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Timeframe of Mitigation
Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
2. Data Recovery for Basement and Elevator Pit
A data recovery program for impacts to CA-SDI-8797 Locus C from a basement excavation on the north side of the hotel
structure covering 208 square meters and an elevator shaft pit in the center of the hotel structure covering 6.5 square meters
shall be implemented. The data recovery program shall be based upon a statistical sample of 15 percent of the affected area.
If significant cultural material is found during data recovery for the caissons, the sample percentage may be increased up to
100 percent of recovered material depending on the significance of resources encountered in order to achieve the mitigation
data recovery goal to exhaust the research potential of the affected deposit. The percentage of data recovery required and the
locations of the units shall be presented in the Research Design to be submitted and approved by the City prior to the
initiation of any mitigation work.
The data recovery program shall include a stratified sampling program to be completed in three phases. Each phase of
excavations will require the completion of the laboratory analysis of the data recovery unit results in order to complete the
unbiased stratification of the deposit. Phase I shall consist of a 10 percent or greater indexing percentage. The locations
(data recovery unit distribution pattern) and number of sample units will be presented in the research design document
discussed in Section A. Phase II shall consist of excavation of the areas of highest research potential, as stratified by the
results of the Phase I units. Phase II excavations shall include an additional 5 percent, or greater excavation percentage if
cultural materials are found during data recovery for caissons (increased percentage to be approved by the City) of the
deposit within the areas of highest potential. The Phase II excavations will be used to further stratify the affected deposit
into the area of highest research potential. To exhaust the research potential of those areas designated for Phase II study, a
Phase II sample shall include an additional 10 percent sample of the high potential area. However, if the Phase II sample is
determined to have exhausted the research potential of the affected deposit, a Phase II sample would not be required. A pile
and lag shoring system shall be utilized to prevent surrounding soils under the slurry cap that shall remain in place from
caving in.
Any features or human burials discovered in either phase of work in these two locations (basement and elevator shaft pit)
shall necessitate the expansion of the data recovery program to a third phase of sampling. The scope of any Phase III sample
shall be determined following Phase II. If applicable, backhoe trenching and/or light grading for that portion of CA-SDI-8797
Locus C to be developed may also be employed to locate and excavate/document additional prehistoric features and activity
areas prior to development. All features shall be exposed through hand excavation and documented through photographs
and illustrations. Block unit excavations shall be employed in areas with features and associated artifacts to expose entire
feature dimensions. Following the completion of the data recovery program, all remaining midden soil within the basement
and elevator shaft pit limits of work shall be subjected to water screening in a bulk sample to search for any human remains
or ceremonial/sacred artifacts that would require reburial in an on-site preservation area.
3. Data Recovery Outside of Capped Portion of SDI-8797 Locus C
Parcel 211-023-07-00 (water tank property) shall be subject to a data recovery program. In the event that cultural deposits
are discovered where caissons will be used, potential impacts to those elements of SDI-8797 Locus C will be mitigated by
implementing the established mitigation plan noted in Section 1, above. Because development impacts will only occur
where caissons penetrate the soil, data recovery can be limited to those locations. The protocol to be followed in the
remaining area surrounding the concrete cap over SDI-8797 Locus C will be:
Phase I
a. Phase I shall consist of excavation of eight 1x1-meter units within this area. Upon completion of the field work, the
recovered data shall be evaluated to answer issues of horizontal extent of the subsurface deposit, intra-site distribution
of artifact types, and spatial variations in quantities of artifacts/faunal remains not revealed during the testing.
EXHIBIT B
Page 5
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Timeframe of Mitigation
Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
b. The results from Phase I shall be compared to the results from the test excavations conducted by Brian F. Smith and
Associates and Gallegos and Associates. A lack of intra-site variation in artifact distribution, no noticeable increase in
amounts of material recovered per volume excavated, or the lack of features would mirror the initial testing results and
indicate redundancy in data. (Redundancy is the point at which continued excavation would produce only larger amounts
of already represented data.) If redundancy is determined, no additional excavation is required.
c. If intra-site variability in artifact type clustering, artifact density clustering, or features are discovered, redundancy
would not be achieved, and a second phase of data recovery shall begin.
Phase II
a. Phase II shall involve excavating an additional five 1x1-meter units in areas where Phase I units indicated variations in
vertical or horizontal artifact distribution, density variation, or feature locations.
b. The results of Phase II shall then be compared to the results of Phase I, and it shall be determined if the necessary
amount of data has been gathered to demonstrate redundancy and adequately represent the site. If variations in
recovered data remain or features are found that require additional excavation to uncover, a third phase of excavation
shall be required.
Phase III
Phase III shall require excavating an additional five to ten 1x1-meter units. These units shall be placed as blocks in areas
identified in Phase II as unique in type or quantity of artifact recovery, or feature locations.
4. The removal of the water tank foundation and any other elements of the water transmission lines that could potentially
disturb soil shall be monitored by an archaeologist and Native American representative.
5. Any cultural deposits exposed by the demolition process shall be flagged and protected from further disturbance.
6. In those locations where any cultural deposits exposed during the demolition process correspond with the locations of
planned caisson excavations, the caisson locations shall be incorporated into the data recovery program for caissons as
described in Section B, above.
For caisson locations that do not correspond to any observed locations of cultural deposits, the drilling of the caisson holes
must be done in a manner that will allow the archaeologist and Native American Monitor the opportunity to inspect the soil
frequently for the first 10 feet to ensure that no deeply buried cultural deposits are directly impacted. If cultural deposits are
discovered during the drilling process, the drilling at that location will be halted and the data recovery protocol for caissons
with cultural deposits shall be initiated. Drilling may only resume when the cultural deposit has been removed through
archaeological mitigation procedures and the consulting archaeologist and Native American Monitor have cleared the
resumption of drilling.
EXHIBIT B
Page 6
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Timeframe of Mitigation
Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
C. Laboratory Analysis
The excavations are anticipated to produce moderate quantities of prehistoric artifacts, vertebrate faunal materials (bone
associated with animals/fish hunted by the prehistoric occupants of the site), invertebrate faunal remains (marine shellfish
remains used for food), features (such as fire hearths), and potentially human remains. At the conclusion of the excavations, all
artifacts, ecofacts, and other associated cultural materials shall be subjected to intensive laboratory processing. The laboratory
process will include standard laboratory procedures of cleaning, cataloging, data entry, and artifact analysis. The special
analyses will include lithic analysis, ceramics analysis, faunal analysis (including both marine and terrestrial species), shell
species analysis, assemblage analysis, lithic reduction analysis, residue analysis, radiocarbon dating, obsidian hydration and
sourcing analysis, shell bead analysis, prehistoric fishing equipment analysis, trade materials analysis, and projectile point
analysis.
D. Report of Findings and Curation of Artifacts
1. The data recovery program and the mitigation monitoring program shall be discussed in a final cultural resources technical
report. The report shall satisfy City of Carlsbad archaeological report guidelines. The report will include the results of all
archaeological data recovery excavations, laboratory analyses of artifacts, discussions of the treatment of human remains,
and the repatriation of cultural materials.
2. The curation of all artifacts recovered from the property and their subsequent analysis as part of the laboratory program will
be discussed in the Pre-Excavation Agreement with the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians. The Native American
representatives may choose to repatriate the artifacts back to the location of the prehistoric site and rebury them in the
ground. The specifics of any curation process will be based upon the preference of the tribal representatives
Archaeological Resources. The
project would require grading and/or
excavation that could result in a
substantial adverse change to SDI-
8797 Locus C, which is identified as a
significant archaeological site pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4.
Due to the presence of known
archaeological resources on the project
site, there is a potential that other
unknown resources could be
encountered and disturbed during site
grading. This would be a significant
impact.
ARC-2: Archaeological Monitoring Program. Due to the potential for buried cultural resources and/or human remains to be
encountered on-site, a qualified archaeological monitor and a Native American monitor shall be present during project-related grading
and trenching activities. The following measures shall be implemented:
A. Monitoring
1. During the grading of any soil within the project or any off-site improvements, a qualified archaeologist and a Native
American monitor from the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians shall be on-site full-time to perform inspections of the
excavations. The presence of the archaeologist is a mandatory grading requirement; however, the Native American monitors
may choose to monitor at their discretion during the grading program. Because of the constrained work environment, a
monitoring team shall typically include one archaeological monitor and one Luiseño Native American monitor.
2. Prior to the initiation of grading, the contractor shall organize a preconstruction meeting of all personnel scheduled to work
on the grading and construction phases of the project. The purpose of this meeting will be a Worker’s Education Program to
instruct the work force about the cultural resources associated with the project, the sensitivity of these resources to the local
Native American community, and the protocols to be followed should any workers encounter artifacts during work on the
project. The consulting archaeologist shall conduct the Worker’s Education Program and shall include the Native American
representatives as part of the presentation of Native American concerns.
3. In the event that previously unidentified and potentially significant cultural deposits or features are discovered, the
consulting archaeologist or Native American monitor shall have the authority to divert or temporarily halt ground
disturbance operations to review possible discoveries. This temporary diversion of work shall be as brief as possible; however,
if a discovery is confirmed, the supervising archaeologist shall report this to the City’s representative and the developer.
Prior to any construction
permits, including but not
limited to, the first Grading
Permit, Demolition Plans/
Permits and Building Plans/
Permits, but prior to the first
pre-construction meeting.
City of Carlsbad
EXHIBIT B
Page 7
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Timeframe of Mitigation
Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
The discovery location shall be secured from further disturbance to allow evaluation of potentially significant cultural
resources. The consulting archaeologist, in consultation with tribal representatives, shall determine the significance of the
discovered resources. For any significant cultural resources discovered during monitoring of grading, further mitigation
measures (data recovery) will be necessary to complete the impact mitigation. A detailed description of additional mitigation
measures will be prepared by the consulting archaeologist and approved by the City prior to implementation. If any human
remains are discovered, the County coroner shall be contacted as detailed in Part C, below. In the event that the remains are
determined to be of Native American origin, the most likely descendent (MLD) shall be contacted to determine proper
treatment and disposition of the remains. Isolates and clearly non-significant deposits shall be documented in the field, but
shall not be subjected to data recovery mitigation.
4. All cultural material collected during the grading monitoring program shall be included in the laboratory process listed in
ARC-1 (C). Artifacts recovered during monitoring shall be included in the curation process listed in ARC-1 (E).
5. The mitigation monitoring program shall be described in the report of findings listed in ARC-1 (D).
B. Human Remains
In the event of the discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, protocols and
procedures noted in the Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, the California Government Code Section 27491, the Health and
Safety Code Section 7050.5, and the County of San Diego Historical Resources Guidelines for the treatment of human remains
encountered at archaeological sites shall be followed. The City of Carlsbad shall require that the developer prepare and submit
to the tribes for their review and comments a pre-excavation agreement that is intended to outline the procedures and protocol
to be followed in the event human remains are identified. The procedures listed below shall be followed where human remains
are encountered:
1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the burial location and a reasonable distance around the burial until:
a. A City official is contacted;
b. The coroner is contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required; and
c. If the coroner determines the remains are Native American:
i. The coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours.
ii. The NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the MLD from the deceased Native American.
Previous discoveries of human remains on this project resulted in the NAHC identifying the San Luis Rey Band of
Mission Indians as the MLD. It is reasonable to assume that the San Luis Rey Band will continue in that role for
the duration of the project.
iii. The MLD may make recommendations to the landowner or the City for the excavation work.
2. The Native American human remains and associated funerary items that are removed from the project area of potential
effect may be reburied at a location mutually agreed upon by the City, the project applicant/developer, and the MLD. An
existing open space easement adjacent to the proposed development project has already served as a location to rebury
human remains encountered during construction projects for the Grand Pacific Resorts, and this location may be used
again for the relocation of human remains, if agreed to by the MLD. If reinternment of human remains cannot be
accomplished at the time of discovery, the MLD shall either take temporary possession of the remains or identify a location
for the temporary, but secure, storage of the remains.
3. For the purposes of this document, human remains are defined as:
a. Cremations including the soil surrounding the deposit;
b. Interments including the soil surrounding the deposit; or
c. Associated funerary items.
EXHIBIT B
Page 8
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Timeframe of Mitigation
Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
Human Remains and
Archaeological Resources. The
project site contains the archaeological
site CA-SDI-8797 Locus C and known
human burial(s) that were discovered
during grading for the Carlsbad
Municipal Golf Course and the Lot 9
pad and left in place at the time of
discovery. Grading and development
could disturb these resources, resulting
in a potentially significant impact.
ARC-3: In order to permanently protect portions of SDI-8797 Locus C that will not be directly affected by the construction of the project,
the City of Carlsbad and the applicant shall place a restrictive easement over the remaining undisturbed cultural deposit. This
easement will restrict any future disturbance of the cultural deposit. The archaeological consultant and Native American representative
shall assume the responsibility to ensure that construction activities are not expanded beyond the limits presented in “Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Westin Hotel and Timeshare Project. The delineation of the boundaries of the restrictive
easement shall be completed by the consulting archaeologist and Native American representative and submitted to the City of Carlsbad.
Prior to granting of occupancy
permits or before final
inspection.
City of Carlsbad
Paleontological Resources. Project
implementation has the potential to
result in significant impacts to
paleontological resources due to
grading within formations with a high
and moderate resource sensitivity.
Impacts would be significant.
PAL-1: Paleontological Monitoring
1. Monitoring Plan
Prior to any grading on any portion of the project site, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the City to prepare
a Monitoring Plan. A qualified paleontologist is an individual with an MS or PhD in paleontology or geology who is
familiar with paleontological procedures and techniques. No grading permits shall be issued until the monitoring plan
has been approved by the Planning Director.
2. Pre-Grading Conference and Paleontological Monitor
A. A qualified paleontological monitor shall be present at a pre-grading conference with the developer, grading
contractor, and the environmental review coordinator. The purpose of this meeting will be to consult and
coordinate the role of the paleontologist in the grading of the site. A qualified paleontologist is an individual with
adequate knowledge and experience with fossilized remains likely to be present to identify them in the field and is
adequately experienced to remove the resources for further study.
B. A paleontologist or designate shall be present during those relative phases of grading as determined at the pre-
grading conference. The monitor shall have the authority to temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow
recovery of fossil remains. At the discretion of the monitor, recovery may include washing and picking of soil
samples for micro-vertebrate bone and teeth. The developer shall authorize the deposit of any resources found on
the project site in an institution staffed by qualified paleontologists as may be determined by the Planning
Director. The contractor shall be aware of the random nature of fossil occurrences and the possibility of a discovery
of such scientific and/or educational importance which might warrant a long-term salvage operation or
preservation. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and/or recovery times shall be resolved by the
Planning Director.
3. Fossil Recovery and Curation
A. If fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall recover them. In most cases, this
fossil salvage can be completed in a short period of time. However, some fossil specimens (such as complete large
mammal skeleton) may require an extended salvage period. In these instances the paleontologist (or
paleontological monitor) shall be allowed to temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil
remains in a timely manner. Because of the potential for the recovery of small fossil remains, such as isolated
mammal teeth, it may be necessary in certain instances, to set up a screen-washing operation on the site.
B. Fossil remains collected during the monitoring and salvage portion of the mitigation program shall be cleaned
repaired, sorted, and cataloged.
Prior to any construction
permits, including but not
limited to, the first Grading
Permit, Demolition Plans/
Permits and Building
Plans/Permits, but prior to the
first pre-construction meeting.
City of Carlsbad
EXHIBIT B
Page 9
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Timeframe of Mitigation
Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
C. Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps, shall either be deposited (as a
donation) in a scientific institution with permanent paleontological collections such as the San Diego Natural
History Museum or retained by the City and displayed to the public at an appropriate location such as a library
or City Hall.
4. Monitoring Report
Prior to occupancy of any buildings, a paleontological monitoring report shall be submitted to the Planning Director and
the Carlsbad Historic Preservation Commission. This report shall describe all the materials recovered and provide a
tabulation of the number of hours spent by paleontological monitors on the site.
LAND USE
MHCP/HMP Consistency. Impacts
to the MHCP/HMP would be
potentially significant due to noise
generated during construction that
could impact the coastal California
gnatcatcher in the adjacent preserve
area.
See mitigation measure BIO-2: Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys. See mitigation measure BIO-2 See mitigation
measure BIO-2