HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-08-18; Planning Commission; Resolution 56971
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5697
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
ADDENDUM, AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM TO APPROVE A MASTER PLAN
AND RELATED ENTITLEMENTS FOR THE LA COSTA
RESORT LOCATED EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL AND
SOUTH OF ARENAL ROAD, IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 6.
CASE NAME: LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER
PLAN
CASE NO.: GPA 03-OWZC 03-04MP 03-02MP 149S/
CT 03-01/PUD 03-06/SUP 03-06/SUP 03-03
WHEREAS, KSL, “Developer/Owner,” has filed a verified application with the
City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
See attached
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum were prepared in
conjunction with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 18th day of August 2004, hold
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, and Addendum, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
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
Program, Exhibit “ND,” according to Exhibits “NOI” dated May 26, 2004, and
“PII” dated May 21, 2004, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the
following findings:
Findinm:
1.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
*..
...
...
The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Addendum, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any
comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum have 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
c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
d. based on the EIA Part 11 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment, with the
implementation of the mitigation measures of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
PC RES0 NO. 5697 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of August 2004, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Whitton, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez,
Heineman, and Segall
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Montgomery
ABSTAIN:
/d&J& / “K H. WHITTON, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLYMILL&
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5697 -3-
PARCEL I
A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PORTION OF SECTION 26 AND SECTION 35, BOTH IN
TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE
OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF; EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF EL CAMINO
OF RECORD; ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE LEUCADIA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT SITE AS DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED AUGUST 11,
1961 AS DOCUMENT NO. 138155 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS;
REAL PER ROAD SURVEY NO. 682 AND ROAD SURVEY NO. 1800-1 AND VARIOUS DEEDS
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THOSE PORTIONS LYING WITHIN LA COSTA VALLEY
UNIT NO. I, PER MAP NO. 5434, LA COSTA VALLEY UNIT NO. 2, PER MAP NO. 5486, LA
COSTA CONDOMINIUM UNIT NO. 3, PER MAP NO. 6129 AND LA COSTA CONDOMINIUM
UNIT NO. 4, PER MAP NO. 6520, ALL FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER
OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY; ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN
PARCEL A, AS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PORTION OF LOT 14 IN
SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN,
ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, AND LOT 3 OF LA COSTA
CONDOMINIUM NO. 4, AS SHOWN ON MAP NO. 6520, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY RECORD RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, ALL IN THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA;
ALSO EXCEPTING THE LA COSTA SHOPPING CENTER, BEING THOSE PORTIONS OF
LOTS 9, 14 AND 15 OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN
BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
ACCORDING TO THE OFFICAL PLAT THEREOF; TOGETHER WITH THOSE PORTIONS OF
LOTS 45 AND 46 OF LA COSTA VALLEY UNIT NO. 1, ACCORDING TO MAP NO. 5434,
FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, AND
THOSE PORTIONS OF SECTIONS 25, 26, 35 AND 36, TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 4
WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF,
ALL BEING IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, EXCEPTING ANY PORTION LYING WITHIN LA COSTA CONDOMINIUM UNIT
NO. 3, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 6129, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY AND LA COSTA CONDOMINIUM UNIT NO. 4,
ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 6520, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUTNY; ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM, A PORTION OF
THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 26; ALSO EXCEPTION THAT PORTION OF
THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 12
SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL
PLAT THEREOF; TOGETHER WITH, A PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF SECTION 36,
TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNADINO MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFONIA, ACCORDING TO THE
OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF; ALSO TOGETHER WITH A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO
MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF.
PARCEL 2:
PARCEL A OF PARCEL MAP NO. 13427, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN
DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS.
SAN DIEGO OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY AUGUST 16, 1984 AS DOCUMENT NO. 84-313333
PARCEL 3A:
LOTS 121 THROUGH 129 INCLUSIVE OF LA COSTA VALLEY UNIT NO. 1, IN THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP
THEREOF NO. 5434, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO
COUNTY JULY 29,1964.
PARCEL 3B:
LOT 225 AND 226 OF LA COSTA VALLEY UNIT NO. 4, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO.
5781, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY,
SEPTEMBER 16,1966.
PARCEL 3C:
LOTS 145,146 AND 147 OF LA COSTA VALLEY UNIT NO. 3, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO.
5734, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MAY
18, 1966.
EXCEPTING THAT PORTION OF SAID LOT 147, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF LOT 101 OF MAP NO. 5434, FILED IN
THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, BEING AN ANGLE
POINT IN THE SOUTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 147; THENCE ALONG SAID
SOUTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY, NORTH 57°24'00" WEST, 128.03 TO AN ANGLE POINT;
THENCE SOUTH 64"OO'OO" EAST, 95.16 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 39°19'00" EAST, 35.24
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 3D:
LOTS 138,139 AND 140 OF LA COSTA VALLEY UNIT NO. 2, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO.
5486, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY
OCTOBER 28,1964.
PARCEL 4:
A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR PASSAGE, DRAINAGE AND MAINTENANCE OVER,
UNDER, THROUGH AND ACROSS A PORTION OF LOT 148 OF LA COSTA VALLEY UNIT
NO. 4, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 5781, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY.
PARCEL 5:
PARCEL A, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN "CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE"
RECORDS.
RECORDED NOVEMBER 25, 1981 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 81- 374108 OF OFFICIAL
PARCEL 6;
A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER COSTA DEL MAR
ROAD AS DEDICATED AND REJECTED ON LA COSTA CONDOMINIUMS NO. 3 AND 4
ACCORDING TO MAPS 6129 AND 6520 RESPECTIVELY; EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY
PORTION LYING WITHIN PARCEL 9 HEREIN DESCRIBED.
PARCEL 7A:
A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF WAY FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS AND
PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR ACCESS OVER AND THROUGH THAT PORTION OF LOT
9 IN SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 15 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN,
IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, MORE PARTICULARILY DESRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND
DESCRIBED IN A DEED TO LEUCADIA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, RECORDED AUGUST
11,1961 AS DOCUMENT NO. 138155 OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH
BOUNDARY LINE AS DESCRIBED IN SAID DEED, NORTH 89'25'44" WEST, 75.08 FEET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH BOUNDARY LINE AS DESCRIBED IN SAID DEED;
THENCE ALONG SAID EAST BOUNDARY LINE SOUTH OO"34'16" WEST, 53.69 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 8:
AN EASEMENT FOR A GOLF CART UNDERCROSSING STRUCTURE BEING IN THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING A PORTION OF
THE NORTHEAST QUARTER AND THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 26,
TOWNSHIP 12 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO
THE OFFlCAlL PLAT THEREOF.
PARCEL 9:
ALL THAT PORTION OF COSTA DEL MAR ROAD, AS SHOWN AND DELINEATED ON MAP
OF LA COSTA CONDOMINIUM NO. 4 ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 6520, IN THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, LYING WESTERLY OF A RADIAL LINE FROM THE
NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF LOT 3 OF SAID MAP NO. 6520, HAVING A BEARING OF
NORTH 38"33'43" WEST, PER THAT CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE RECORDED
NOVEMEBER 25,1981 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 81-374108 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN
CASE NO: GPA 03-08/ZC 03-04/MP 03-02/MP 149(S)/CT 03-01/PUD 03-
06/SUP 03-06/SI.JP 03-03
PROJECT LOCATION: LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA PROPERTIES
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Approval of a Master Plan for the La Costa Resort and Spa
DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above
described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said
review, the initial study (EM Part 2) did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the
environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows:
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment.
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).
[XI 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 a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to
applicable standards.
A copy of the initial study (EM Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is
on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
ADOPTED: September 21,2004, pursuant to Citv Council Resolution No. 2004-304
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. H
Planning Director
49 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
ADDENDUM TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN
GPA 03-08/ZC 03-04/MP 03-02/MP 149(S)/CT 03-01/PUD 03-06/SUP 03-06/SUP 03-03
Pursuant to Section 151 64 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Addendum
to a Mitigated Negative Declaration is possible if no new impacts or mitigation measures are
involved, and the nature of the addendum does not alter the project description to a significant
degree. The Addendum can be approved if none of the criteria requiring a Subsequent
Negative Declaration can be applied per section 15162 of CEQA, which is the case.
Specifically, no changes due to new environmental impacts, or the underestimation of the
severity of previously identified impacts are involved with the Addendum. Additional, the
Addendum is not the result of new information or analysis that omitted or in error from the
originally prepared Mitigated Negative Declaration, and no new mitigation measures are
necessary or proposed.
Given the above, the Addendum address four specific areas of the prepared Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Existing zoning and General Plan designations for the area north of Arena1 Road: was
originally shown as PC (Planned Community) zoning with OS (Open Space) General
Plan; the area is actually R-1 zone with RLM (Residential Low Medium) General Plan
designation. The proposal, however, to rezone the area to PC and replace the RLM
with OS was part of the circulated MND so the proposed land use designations are not
changing. This addendum clarifies the prior mapping error. Within this area, there is an
island of R-l/RLM covering the existing homes (outside of Master Plan ownership) that
is not proposed for change to PC/OS. This is in keeping with public information
provided regarding the proposed land uses for this area.
The existing La Costa Master Plan (MP 149) which covered the greater La Costa area
including the Resort property, needs to be amended to formally withdraw the Resort
from the original master plan. MP 149(S) has been added to the entitlement package
for this project to this purpose.
CUP 258(D) is being withdrawn. The originally prepared MND contained an amendment
to the existing La Costa Ballroom Conditional Use Permit (CUP 258) to depict new
landscaping and parking areas; no uses changes or intensifications proposed. The
CUP was required because the previous site zoning of C-2 (General Commercial)
allowed resort uses like a ballroom via CUP approval. With the zone change to PC and
the implementation of the La Costa Resort and Spa Master Plan, the Ballroom will be
regulated by the provisions for Planning Area 5 which designate the resort ballroom as
permitted use without the need for CUP approval. The elements of project monitoring
will remain, as is standard for all uses that are within a master plan in the city.
SUP 03-06 is typographically noted, in error, as SUP 06-06; the proper case number is
SUP 03-06.
- City of Carlsbad
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN
CASE NO: MP 03-02/GPA 03-08/ZC 03-04/CT 03-3 l/PUD 03-06/SUP 03-
06/SUP 06-06
PROJECT LOCATION: LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Processing of a master plan and related entitlements to guide the
implementation of infill redevelopment within the Resort property to develop up to 197
commercial dwelling units, related parking and a Golf Performance Center; plus guidelines for
the approvals of future Special Event Permits onsite.
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 (EM Part 2) identified potentially
significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made
by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are
released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly
no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in
light of the whole record before the City that the project "as revised" may have a significant
effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be recommended
for adoption by the City of Carlsbad City Council.
A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration are on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad,
California 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to
the Planning Department within 30 days of the date of this notice.
The proposed project and Mitigated 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 Eric Munoz in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4608.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD MAY 26,2004 OF JUNE 26,2004
PUBLISH DATE MAY 26,2004
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-731 4 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.y&g$,~.us @
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: MP 03-0YGPA 03-08/ZC 03-04/CT 03-3 l/PUD 03-06/CUP 258(D)/SUP 03-06/SUP 06-06
DATE: May 21, 2004
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: La Costa Resort and Spa Master Plan
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Eric Munoz 760.602.4608
4. PROJECT LOCATION: La Costa Resort and Spa
5. PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: KSL 50-905 Avenida Bermudas, La
Ouinta CA 92253:
6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Currently RMH, RWO and TR
7. ZONING: Currently PC, C-2, RD-M and RP
8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits,
financing approval or participation agreements): None
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
Infill redevelopment of the La Costa Resort campus to construct up to 197 commercial dwellin9 units via
implementation of a proposed master plan for the propertv. Various entitlements are reauired since land
use designation changes are involved as shown below. The proiect is depicted in the draft Master Plan
document and related exhibits, all of which can be reviewed at the City of Carlsbad Planning
Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue. Carlsbad. CA 92008.
The focus of the master plan is to allow for the development of Commercial Dwelling Units (CDU’s) on
the property as more fully described in the master plan document. Up to 197 CDU’s are Drouosed via
phased development per the master ulan uroposal. Mitigation measures are urovided regarding adeauate
access. circulation and parking during - construction to buildout. Three mitigation measures are prouosed
with this Mitigated Negative Declaration:
1 Rev. 07/03/02
1. Traffic Impacts - Short Term Construction
2. Traffic Impacts - Special Events
3. Parking Adequacy
A listing of entitlements being requested follows:
. ZC 03-04: Zone Change: Designates entire Resort property as Planned Community (PC)
in order to process and implement a comprehensive master plan. Existing C-2, RD-M
and RP zones will be replaced with the PC zoning.
MP 03-02: Master Plan: Processes the master plan for the development of the project.
GPA 03-08: General Plan Amendment: Changes General Plan designations from RWO
and RMH to TR
.
.
. CUP 258 (D): Conditional Use Permit Amendment to CUP 258 (C): Minor changes to
Ballroom circulation and landscaping for fire access.
CT 03-31: Tract Map: To subdivide property into 41 lots which covers existing golf
course and Resort uses and allows for commercial dwelling unit development.
PUD 03-06: PUD permit. To process the Commercial Dwelling Units.
SUP 03-03: Special Use Permit - El Camino Real.
landscaping along the El Camino Real frontage.
.
.
Reviews development and
. SUP 03-06: Special Use Permit - Floodplain. Reviews development of Golf Center,
which is located in a flood-hazard zone and subject to hydrological analysis.
The proposal for development within the master plan, reviewed planning by planning area, is provided on
the table below. Existing as well as proposed land uses for each planning area is provided.
2 Rev. 07/03/02
I USE
EXISTING USE I PLANNING AREA
PA 1
PA 2
9 Executive homes/resort units
Va ca n t/Pa r ki ng Lot
75 Commercial Dwelling Units
38 Commercial Dwelling Units
PA 3 Vaca nt/Pa rking Lot 46 Commercial Dwelling Units
PA 4 Hotel Units/Uses 38 Commercial Dwelling Units
* All proposed uses noted above include parking as required.
PA 5
3
Resort Ballroom No Use Change Proposed
Rev. 07/03/02
PA 6
PA 7
Resort/Golf/Tennis Uses Golf Performance Center
No Use Change Proposed Existing Resort/Clubhouse and
Administration/Golf Courses
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.
0 Aesthetics Geology/Soils Noise
0 Agricultural Resources 0 Hazards/Hazardous Materials Pol?u1ation and Housing
0 Air Quality 0 Hydrologyrnater Quality 0 Public Services
Biological Resources 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Recreation
0 Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources TransportatiodCirculation
Dutilities & Service Systems L] Mandatory Findings of
Significance
4 Rev. 07/03/02
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.
Planner Signature Date
5 Rev. 07/03/02
ENVIRONMENTAL Ihl PA CTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES. Chapter 3. Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental
Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental
Impacr 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-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the
environment, but 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.
6 Rev. 07/03/02
0 An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact'' is checked, and including but not limited to
the following circumstances: (I) the potentially significant adverse effect has not been discussed or
mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does nut agree to mitigation
measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; (7) a "Statement of Overriding
Considerations" for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3)
proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact. to less than significant; or (4) through the
EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect.
or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a
level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing
mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant.
7 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Potentially
Signiticant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
LessThan No
Significant lmpacl
Impact
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0
0 b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a State scenic highway?
0 0 c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
0 0 d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
11. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model- 1997 prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would
the project:
0 0 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?
0
0
0 DEI b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
0 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?
EI 111. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied
upon to make the following determinations.) Would the
project:
0
o
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?
8 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Sign~ficant Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
IXI 0 a 0 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? 0 0
a e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the
project: lxl
0 0 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?
0 om
om
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?
0 0 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?
0 0 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?
a
0
0 om
0 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'?
0 g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally
sensitive?
9 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Sipnificani Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
0 0 a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical resource as defined in s$15064.5?
0 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of an archeological resource pursuant to $15064.5?
0 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi-
cal resource or site or unique geologic feature?
0 0 d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
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.
0
0 ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
0 ... 111. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
0
cl
iv. Landslides?
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil'?
0 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?
0 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?
cl 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?
0
0
0
0
0
om
OIXI
(XI
om
(XI
10 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project:
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Create a significant hazard to the public or
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
environment'?
For a project within an airport land use plan, or
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands'?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
17
17
0
o
17
0
0
0
0
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Signiiicant Iinpact
Mitigation Unless Impact
Incorporated IXI
urn
0
0
0
0
OIXI
nIXI
om
0 0 Ix1'
11 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with ground water recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local ground water table
level (Le., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
Impacts to groundwater quality?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the tlow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in
a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
Create or contribute runoff water, which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff3
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation.
map?
Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures,
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface
waters.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Signiticanr
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
Ix1
12 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Signiiicruit Inipac[
Impact Unless linpact Mitigation
Incorporated o I7 u1xI m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals,
pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics,
nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash)
into receiving surface waters or other alteration of
receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)'?
0 0
0 0
n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or
wetland waters) during or following construction?
o) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water
body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d)
list'?
0 0 p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater
receiving water quality objectives or degradation of
beneficial uses?
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?
0 o 0
0 17 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
0 a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region
and the residents of the State?
0 I7 b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
X. NOISE - Would the project result in:
0 a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels
in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of
other agencies? o 0 b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise
levels?
om
OIXI
13 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially PotentiaIly Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 OIXI c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
0 0 OIXI d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project'?
IXI 0 0 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
0 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?
X. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
0 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)'?
cl 0 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
0 0 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
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?
OIXI
IXI
14 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
XIV. RECREATION
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'?
Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC - Would the project:
Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (Le., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections) '?
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e& sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Result in inadequate emergency access?
Result in insufficient parking capacity?
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn-
outs, bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the
project:
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which would
cause significant environmental effects?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Signi ticant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
IXI
0
n
0
El
El
0
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
o
17
0
lxl
0
0
0
0
0
O
15 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
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?
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs‘?
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste’?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
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?
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumula-
tively considerable” means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects?)
Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Potentially Less Than ho Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact Mitigation
Incorporated 0 0 OH
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 IXI
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:
4
b)
Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
16 Rev. 07/03/02
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 Signiticant 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.
17 Rev. 07/03/02
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. AESTHETICS
The project does not have the potential for significant aesthetic impacts because it will implement the
Spanish Colonial architectural theme that is proposed for the development of the Commercial Dwelling
Units. The master plan provides guidelines for high quality architecture that will compliment the existing
structures at the La Costa Resort. In addition, the development shall implement the El Camino Real (ECR)
Corridor Standards as implemented by the master plan. The master plan modifies the Standards with
regards to landscaping with addition of mixing date Palms along the ECR frontage to promote ;L resort feel
in combination with Old Spanish theme of the Corridor Standards which designate the use of California
Sycamores. While the conversion of the existing property from old resort units and parking areas to the
development of commercial dwelling unit villas is an impact; the area being proposed for development is
not restricted open space, General Plan designated open space, nor have any significant habitat or other
biological or cultural resources. Furthermore, the Travel Recreation (TR) General Plan designation that
covers most of the area proposed for commercial villas is already in place and would allow such
development. The balance of the area proposed for commercial villa development is comprised of Planning
Area 1 with 5 acres, which could potentially yield up to 57 dwelling units the existing General Plan
designation of RMH; so the existing development on PA 1 of nine resort homes does not represent the
maximum amount of development allowed. Therefore, in combination with the landscaping and
architectural elements described above, there will not be significant aesthetic environmental impacts.
11. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
No agricultural lands will be affected by this master plan or its proposed implementation.
111. AIR QUALITY-Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No Impact. The project is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non-attainment area for
ozone (03), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter
(PMlo). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin
(SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution
controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is
embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District
(APCD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG).
A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state-
mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-attainment areas having
serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by
the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly
regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996.
The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are
incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city’s and the
County’s general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project
presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that
the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact. In the present case, the project is a General Plan
Amendment to acknowledge trails as an important part of the City’s circulation system.
Section 15 125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific reference
to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality management
plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps
needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California Air Resources
Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms to the RAQS which include the following:
18 Rev. 07/03/02
0
0
Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area?
Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan?
The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin. and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being
implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions of the City’s General Plan and the RAQS.
Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way contlict or obstruct
implementation of the regional plan.
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
No Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is in the City of Oceanside. Data available
for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the
state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and 2001) and one day in 2001 for the federal 8-hour
average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour state standard for suspended particulates in 1996. No violations of
any other air quality standards have been recorded recently.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
No Impact. The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. As
described above, the project has no potential to result in emissions of any kind. Given the lack of emissions
associated with the proposed project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is
implemented.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
No Impact.
concentrations. No impact is assessed.
As noted above, the proposed project would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or
d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
No Impact. As noted above, the project has not potential to result in objectionable odors.
111. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The project does not have the potential for significant impacts to biological resources because all areas
proposed for development by master plan implementation are already developed within the Resort; areas
proposed for development including resort unit areas, parking lots or other open areas that not constitute
native habitat and have been previously graded. Therefore, there will be no significant biological resource
impacts from the approval or implementation of the master plan.
IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES
The project does not have the potential for significant impacts to cultural resources because the subject
development site have already been developed and converted from natural terrain as explained above for
the Biological Resources discussion. Therefore, there will be no significant cultural resource impacts from
the approval or implementation of the master plan
V. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The project does not have the potential for significant impacts to geology or soils because no unusual soils
or geologic exist onsite that would prevent the typical construction proposed for the commercial villas. All
development will proceed according to standard City processes which will ensure that no site-specific
condition exists to conflict with standard grading and construction techniques. Therefore, there will be no
significant impacts to geology or soils due to approval and implementation of the master plan.
19 Rev. 07/03/02
VI. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The approval and implementation of the master plan does invoke the use or transport of hazardous materials
beyond typical construction practices. The use of the villas in the context of resort and health spa setting
does not involve activities by Resort users that would increase the use or risk of such materials.
VII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The project does not have the potential for significant impacts to hydrology or water quality because it will
implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to manage the construction and development
of the commercial villas in addition to the operation of the Resort golf courses, tennis areas, swimming
pool, parking lots and other resort amenities. This will protect San Marcos Creek and adjacent Batiquitos
Lagoon from stormwater runoff and water quality impacts.
The proposed Golf Center in Planning Area 7 is processing a Special Use Permit because of portion of the
improvements are located near the 100 flood line. Therefore analysis is being undertaken to verify the
flood line delineation and to design the site and structure accordingly so that all tlood protection based
findings of 21.1 10 which outlines the Floodplain Special Use Permit process can be made. No significant
impacts to hydrology or water quality will result from the approval or implementation of the master plan.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING
The project will not physically divide a community because the Resort already exists and no new areas of
raw land are being converted into development or resort uses. There is an existing adjacent residential
community that has seen the proposed villa sites remain as resort units or parking areas for several years.
However, the underlying TR General Plan designation as discussed above for Aesthetics allows for the
proposed master plan uses and therefore development of these areas would not constitute a significant land
use or planning impact. The proposed General Plan changes to the RD-M and RWO properties would be
supported because they will eliminate the residential allowance within the Resort property and replace them
with uses consistent with the Travel Recreation designation such as the proposed villas and resort
operations.
The proposed zone change would place the PC zone over the entire property and allowed for the processing
and implementation of the master plan. The master plan will provide a blueprint for the development of the
property, the management of its operations and guidance for Special Events that will protect the interests of
adjacent residents, as the safety concerns of the City, to a degree never before mandated or regulated via the
attached mitigation measures. These three mitigation measures address Traffic Impacts from Short Term
Construction and Special Events, as well as Parking Adequacy, and are attached to the end of this
document.
The City of Carlsbad has a pending Habitat Management Plan pursuant to the federal Endangered Species
Act and the State of California’s Natural Community Conservation Planning program and it does not
indicate any habitat value on the developed subject properties.
Therefore, there will be no significant environmental impacts to land uses or planning.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES
The project does not have the potential for significant impacts to mineral resources, because none are
associated with the property or the uses proposed.
XI. NOISE
The project does not have the potential for generating significant noise impacts because commercial villas
consistent with Travel Recreation uses are proposed. While noise levels will be higher than the current land
uses onsite (resort units and parking lots), this does not prevent development of resort uses. Commercial
villas adjacent to Arenal, which separates the resort property from the residential neighborhood, will be
setback back a minimum of 20 feet from Arenal Road with most structures having a 30-50 foot setback.
However, no standards of city review would apply to the noise generation from this use; the property is
proposed to continue its resort functions with the development of the villas. The City Noise Policy applies
to new residential projects in excess of five units. As a commercial dwelling unit project, these units are not
20 Rev. 07/03/02
XII.
XIII.
xv.
XVI.
a)
considered residential units and therefore: (1) do not require compliance with the Noise Policy for noise
impacts from El Camino Real; (2) are not considered Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU’s) for facility
impacts, (3) are exempt from generating affordable housing units. No impacts to noise will result from the
approval and implementation of the master plan.
POPULATION AND HOUSING
The project does not have the potential for generating significant impacts to population or housing because
the proposed commercial dwelling units are not considered residential dwelling units and therefore do not
affect planned or existing housing stock in the city or immediate area. There will be no impacts to
population or housing from approval or implementation of the master plan.
PUBLIC SERVICES
The project does not have the potential for generating significant impacts to public services because it has
been designed. and will be accordingly conditioned, to comply with the City’s Growth Management
Program and specifically the Zone 6 Local Facilities Management Plan. This Plan is typical for all
development in the city in that it ensures the availability of eleven public services and facilities for all
approvals, ranging from sewer and water services to public safety. This project will not create significant
impacts to public services.
RECREATION
The project does not have the potential for generating significant impacts to recreation because there are no
public recreational amenities or resources associated with proposed development areas. The resort property
represents a private recreational and resort interest, and its expansion within its property does not constitute
an adverse impact to the recreational resources in the city.
TRANSPORTATIONlTRAFFIC-Would the project:
Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity
of the street system?
No Impact unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project will not generate any ADT’s that exceed acceptable
levels of service (LOS) since commercial dwelling units do not generate trips in the same manner as residential
dwelling units. The master plan provides for adequate circulation onsite but the short term construction impact and
special events have the potential to create significant impacts to traffic and capacity on the local street system of El
Camino Real, Estrella del Mar and Arena1 Road. Mitigation measures are proposed for these impacts (short term
construction impacts and special event impacts) which are outlined at the end of the document. These mitigation
measures will guide construction and future special event permitting so that city safety concerns and impacts to the
adjacent residential area will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The measures provide for monitoring and
actions that provide a high level of protection for adjacent residents that previously has not existed nor been
implemented. Therefore, with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the impacts will be less than
significant.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
Less Than Significant Impact. 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:
21 Rev. 07/03/02
Rancho Santa Fe Road
El Camino Real
Palomar Airport Road
SR 78
1-5
Existing ADT* 15-32 “A-C”
21-50 “A-C”
120 “F“
183-198 “D’
10-52 “A-B”
Buildout ADT*
28-43
32-65
29-77
144
2 19-249
*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. Given, the above and the fact that commercial dwelling units do not generate ADT, there will
not be significant impacts.
C) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change
in location that results in substantial safety risks?
No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. The project is not subject to 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.
Substantially increase. hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses?
No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards; and, therefore,
would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s general plan and zoning.
Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No Impact unless Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency
requirements of the Fire and Police Departments. However, the nature and experience of past Special Events at the
La Costa Resort have resulted in the development of mitigation measures which will reduce the adverse impacts to
emergency access to a level of insignificance. These measures, Traffic Impacts - Special Events, are attached to the
end of this document.
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
No Impact unless Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project is requesting a shared use parking assumption
for the commercial dwelling units. These units have up to two lock-out provisions so that up to 393 room keys could
be generated for the 197 villas. The city’s requirement for 1.5 parking spaces per unit is designed for lock-out units.
However, for the phasing of the villa structures, various measures are put into place for the monitoring and provision
of adequate parking. These mitigation measures are summarized in the Parking Adequacy mitigation measure
contained at the end of this document. The primary elements of the mitigation measure are: (1) the continual supply
of at least 200 parking spaces in excess of the spaces required by the shared parking analysis (contained in the
Parking Assessment dated 6 February 2004, available for reference and attached to the master plan) per the Phased
22 Rev. 07/03/02
Interim Parking program referenced in the mitigation measure, (2) parking structure option. and; (3) restriction on
building permit issuance for the final phase of villas. With implementation of the proposed mitigation measures,
there will be no significant impacts to parking adequacy.
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)?
No Impact. The master plan approval and implementation will not impacts any alternative transportation programs
or efforts.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS
Similar to the discussion on Public Services, there will be adverse environmental impacts to utilities or
services systems, or the requirement to construct new such systems.
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.
2.
3.
4. Traffic Analysis, November 3,2003
5.
Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01).
City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994.
Parking Assessment, 6 February 2004
Hydrologic Report, dated November 3,2003
Draft Master Plan, La Costa Resort dated April 30,2004
23 Rev. 07/03/02
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
Traffc Impacts - Short Term Construction
Prior to the issuance of grading permits or building permit issuance for the phased development of the Commercial
Dwelling Units, a Traffic Control Plan (TCP) shall be filed with the City Engineer. Fire Chief and Planning Director.
which reduces to the greatest extent possible, disruptions or adverse impacts to adjacent residential properties. In
addition to typical requirements, the TCP shall address service delivery. trash collection, and construction traffic routing
in addition to providing required parking and services for resort visitors. The TCP shall also assess all feasible
alternative construction access routes that reduce the impacts of heavy traffic in close proximity to existing residential
properties, especially alternatives for primary construction access via Arena1 Road.
Traffic Impacts - Special Events
Prior to the issuance of any Special Event Permit by the Carlsbad Police Department, the City’s Fire Chief. Planning
Director and City Engineer shall provide written support for the Permit. Such support shall be based on the adequate
inclusion of a Traffic and Parking Management Plan, which shall contain the following elements:
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
Closing of adiacent public streets: Adjacent public streets within 1000 feet of the resort property of Planning
Areas 1-6 shall be sign-posted “No Parking” by the Special Event Permit holder at least 72 hours in advance of
the event with wording approved by the Police Department. Sign removal is the responsibility of the Permit
holder within 24 hours after the event, and fines may be assessed if not removed. The Police Department shall
be responsible for the enforcement of the no parking restrictions on the posted public streets during the course of
the special event.
Residential Access Passes: The Special Event Permit holder shall provide documentation that certified mailings
to residents within 1000 feet of the resort property of Planning Areas 1-6 were provided two (2) Residential
Access Passes to allow access through the public streets to their residence.
Special Event Parking Passes: The Special Event Permit holder shall provide numbered parking passes to special
event participants and attendees that correspond to the number of available parking spaces within the resort
property, per a corresponding Special Event Site Plan that designates potential parking areas in a quantity equal
to parking passes. Only vehicles with a Special Event Parking Pass may enter the resort during a Special Event;
all others except emergency service vehicles shall be restricted access.
Special Event Site Plan: The available parking areas are identified to generate parking passes per vehicle. Fire
access lanes, restricted safety or buffer zones and any public service or safety staging areas shall also be depicted
on the Special Event Site Plan. Areas not designated for parking may be required to be so posted, and vehicles
in violation will be towed and/or cited.
Special Event Offsite Parking Location Map: Emphasis for major special events will be on shuttling the general
public from offsite parking locations per a Special Event Offsite Parking Location Map. All offsite locations
need documentation of property owner approval. Onsite access will be limited to vehicles with a Parking Pass.
Parking Adequacy
In order to ensure the adequacy of parking for the development and operation of the Commercial Dwelling Units
(CDU’s) from initial construction through the final phase, Phase 5 per the Phasing Plan of the Master Plan, the
following three mitigation measures shall be implemented and enforced:
1. Phased Interim Parking Provision: Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any phase of
development, compliance with the requirements of the master plan’s Parking Assessment shall be
demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Director; and for Phases 1,2,3 and 4 of the five-phased
development, the provision of 200 additional parking spaces in excess of the Parking Assessment
requirements shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Minor improvements to these
interim parking areas, including but not limited to, landscaping, signage, and striping, may be required by
Planning Director, City Engineer or Fire Chief to ensure public health, safety or welfare. The Phased Interim
Parking is depicted on pages 2-48 thru 2-52 of the Master Plan
At the completion of Phase 5, the project will comply with the analysis of the Parking Assessment and not
be required to exceed, except as may be provided by the Parking Structure Provision mitigation measure
outlined below.
24 Rev. 07/03/02
2. Parkina Structure Provision: The 138-space Parking Structure within Planning Area 5 is designed as an
option to provide additional on-site parking that exceeds the analysis of the master plan’s Parking
Assessment. At project buildout, if conditions and operations at the site so warrant. the Developer and the
Planning Director may determine an enforceable construction schedule of the Parking Structure by mutual
agreement. If there is not mutual agreement, then the Planning Director will initiate a master plan
amendment as allowed by city ordinance to bring the matter to the City Council for resolution. The Parking
Structure is discussed on pages 2-46 and 3-30 of the Master Plan.
3. Phase 5 Building Permit Restriction: Prior to the issuance of any building permit for a structure in Phase 5,
the Planning Director shall make a determination of parking adequacy given the construction, operation and
servicing of the development phases constructed thus far. If the Planning Director is unable to make a
determination of parking adequacy, building permits will not be issued and the Developer may propose
solutions, which may require further review and approval, with the exception of the Parking Structure
Provision outlined above.
25 Rev. 07/03/02
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR
WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
/ c
D'ate I Signature
27 Rev. 07/03/02
PROJECT NAME: LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA MASTER PLAN FILE NUMBERS: GPA 03-08/ZC 03-04/MP 03-02/MP 149(S)/CT
03-OIIPUD 03-061SUP 03-O3/SUP 03-06
APPROVAL DATE: Auqust 4,2004
The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate
identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that
this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly
Bill 31 80 (Public Resources Code Section 21 081.6).
Mitigation Measure
Traffic Impacts - Short Term Construction:
Prior to the issuance of grading permits or building permit issuance for the phased development of the Commercial Dwelling Units, a Traffic Control Plan (TCP) shall be
filed with the City Engineer, Fire Chief and Planning Director, which reduces to the
greatest extent possible, disruptions or adverse impacts to adjacent residential properties. In addition to .typical requirements, the TCP shall address service
delivery, trash collection, and construction traffic routing in addition to providing
required parking and services for resort visitors. The TCP shall also assess all
feasible alternative construction access routes that reduce the impacts of heavy traffic in close proximity to existing residential properties, especially alternatives for primary construction access via Arena1 Road.
Monitoring
Type
Project Construction
Monitoring
Department
Engineering
and
Planning
Shown on
Plans
Yes; on future
Traffic Control
Plans (TCP)
Verified
Implementation Remarks
ExDlanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure.
information. Shown on Plans =When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be
initialed and dated.
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented,
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other
this column will be initialed and dated.
RD - Appendix P.
Mitigation Measure
Traffic Impacts - Special Events:
Prior to the issuance of any Special Event Permit by the Carlsbad Police Department, the City's Fire Chief, Planning Director and City Engineer shall provide written support
for the Permit. Such support shall be based on the adequate inclusion of a Traffic
and Parking Management Plan, which shall contain the following elements:
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
Closina of adiacent public streets: Adjacent public streets within 1000 feet
of the resort property of Planning Areas 1-6 shall be sign-posted "No
Parking" by the Special Event Permit holder at least 72 hours in advance of
the event with wording approved by the Police Department. Sign removal is
the responsibility of the Permit holder within 24 hours after the event, and fines may be assessed if not removed. The Police Department shall be responsible for the enforcement of the no parking restrictions on the posted
public streets during the course of the special event.
Residential Access Passes: The Special Event Permit holder shall provide documentation that certified mailings to residents within 1000 feet of the
resort property of Planning Areas 1-6 were provided two (2) Residential
Access Passes to allow access through the public streets to their residence. Special Event Parkinq Passes: The Special Event Permit holder shall
provide numbered parking passes to special event participants and
attendees that correspond to the number of available parking spaces within the resort property, per a corresponding Special Event Site Plan that designates potential parking areas in a quantity equal to parking passes.
Only vehicles with a Special Event Parking Pass may enter the resort
during a Special Event; all others except emergency service vehicles shall be restricted access. Special Event Site Plan: The available parking areas are identified to
generate parking passes per vehicle. Fire access lanes, restricted safety or
buffer zones and any public service or safety staging areas shall also be
depicted on the Special Event Site Plan. Areas not designated for parking may be required to be so posted, and vehicles in violation will be towed and/or cited.
Saecial Event Offsite Parkinq Location Mae: Emphasis for major special
events will be on shuttling the general public from offsite parking locations
per a Special Event Offsite Parking Location Map. All offsite locations need
documentation of property owner approval. Onsite access will be limited to vehicles with a Parking Pass.
Monitoring
Type
Ongoing -
Special
Events
Monitoring
Department
Police and
Planning
Shown on
Plans
Yes; on future
Special Event
permit
requests
Verified
Implementation Remarks
Exolanation of Headinas: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure.
information. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated.
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented,
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other this column will be initialed and dated.
RD - Appendix P.
Mitigation Measure
Parking Adequacy
In order to ensure the adequacy of parking for the development and operation of the
Commercial Dwelling Units (CDU's) from initial construction through the final phase, Phase 5 per the Phasing Plan of the Master Plan, the following three mitigation
measures shall be implemented and enforced:
Ongoing -
Project
Construction
Until buildout
I
2. Parkinq Structure Provision: The 138-space Parking Structure within Planning
Area 5 is designed as an option to provide additional on-site parking that exceeds
the analysis of the master plan's Parking Assessment. At project buildout, if
conditions and operations at the site so warrant, the Developer and the Planning Director may determine an enforceable construction schedule of the Parking
Structure by mutual agreement. If there is not mutual agreement, then the
Planning Director will initiate a master plan amendment as allowed by city
ordinance to bring the matter to the City Council for resolution. The Parking Structure is discussed on pages 2-46 and 3-30 of the Master Plan.
Phase 5 Buildinq Permit Restriction: Prior to the issuance of any building permit for
a structure in Phase 5, the Planning Director shall make a determination of parking adequacy given the construction, operation and servicing of the development
phases constructed thus far. If the Planning Director is unable to make a
determination of parking adequacy, building permits will not be issued and the Developer may propose solutions, which may require further review and approval,
with the exception of the Parking Structure Provision outlined above.
3.
Monitoring
Department
Planning
Shown on
Plans
Yes for items
1 and 2;
depicted in
Master Plan
Verified
Implementation Remarks
Explanation of Headinas:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure.
information.
Shown on Plans =When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be
initialed and dated.
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented,
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other this column will be initialed and dated.
RD - Appendix P.