HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-03-11; Planning Commission; ; ZC 223|SDP 80-13|CUP 186 - VALLASSTAFF REPORT
DATE: March 11, 1981
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: ZC-223/SDP 80-13/CUP-186, VALLAS -Request for
a zone change from L-C to CT-Q, a site develop-
ment plan for a recreational/commercial develop-
ment, and a conditional use permit to allow the
sale of alcoholic beverages on property located
on the southwest corner of Palomar Airport Road
·and El Camino Real. •
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant requests approval of 1): a zone change .
from L-C (Limited Control) to CT-Q (Commercial/Tourist
w/Q overlay),. 2) a site.development plan for a recrea-
tional/commercial development consisting of a 48 unit
·motel, club house, four racquetball courts, swimming
pool, six tennis courts, two helicopter pads, and an
Olympic golf course, and 3) a conditional use permit
for lbe sale of alcoholic beverages. The property is
owned by the county of San Diego and will be leased to
the applicant.
The site is relatively flat and has not been graded.
A small drainage course runs along the northern
portion of the property and should not affect the
development of this parcel.
II. ANALYSIS
Planning Issues (ZC-223)
1. Is the CT-Q Zone· consistent with the RC (Residential-
Commercial) designation of the General Plan?
2. Are uses allowed in the CT-Q Zone compatible with
surrounding land uses and zoning?
Discussion
The City Council recently approved a General Plan
Amendment on this site to RC (Recreation/Commercial).
They felt that recreation-commercial uses were compatible
with the site and surrounding land uses. The Council
cited the subject property's proximity to a major inter-
section and to Palomar Airport as major reasons for their
determination. The C-T zone is the most compatible zone
with the RC land use designation and staff feels the
Commission is able to make a general plan consistency
finding.
With respect to surrounding land uses, to the south and
west is light industrial development, to the north is ,
Palomar Airport, and to the east is vacant. The proposed
use and other uses allowed in the CT zone are compatible
with these surrounding uses. Because both planning issues
can be satisfactorily resolved, staff is recommending
approyal of the zone change.
Planning Issues {SOP 80-13/CUP-186)
1. Can both on-site and off-site traffic impacts be
mitigated by the design of this project?
2. Is the project comprehensively designed and compatible
with surrounding land uses?
3. Is the proposed heliport a compatible and suitable
use for this loc~tion?
4. Is the serving of alcoholic beverages suitable at
this location?
Since the project is located on a major intersection, a
primary concern of staff's is the traffic impacts created
by this project. As shown on Exhibit "B", the applicant is
proposing an entry driveway on Palomar Airport Road near
the intersection of El Camino Real. Staff feels a driveway
at this location would create severe traffic impacts and
recommends its deletion. This would limit access to one
driveway on El Camino Real some distance away from the
intersection which would satisfactorily provide access to
the property and not create severe traffic hazards.
A traffic report completed by a traffic engineering consultant
(see attachment) indicates potential hazards created by left
:hand turn movements into the project from El Camino Real
during peak hours. This report recommends that a median
island be constructed along El Camino Real allowing left
turn movements into the project, however, restricting,
left turns out of the project. Staff concurs with this
recommendation and has added this as a condition of approval.
With regards to on-site circulation and parking, the project
is not optimally designed. First, there appears to be
inadequate turn around room for cars who cannot find parking
-2-
spaces at the ends of each aisle. Room exists on site to
provide more turnaround room, thus, staff has added an
appropriate condition to require turnaround areas. Also,
the applicant is 1s· spaces short of parking requirements for
the various uses. Again, room exists on site to create more
parking, and staff has added a condition requiring that the
additional spaces be provided.
The building orientations and the relationship of various
uses appear to be well integrated. The applicant has
successfully segregated pedestrian and vehicle circulation.
The only apparent· drawback to the building layout is the
small amount of parking located adjacent to the motel. As
shown on Exhibit "A", most parking is located closer to the
tennis courts and club house_ The reason for this situation
is the location of the driveway on El Camino Real which was
placed as far from Palomar Airport Road as possible. Staff
feels the driveway location is more critical than parking
location and believes the proposed layout is an acceptable
compromise.
_Another concern of staff's is the proposed heliport on the
northern portion of the site. In most cases, a heliport is
not compatible with recreational/ commercial uses. In this
case, the applicant contends the heliports will be an integral
part of the development; it would be used for transporting
guests to and from the facility. Because of the nature of
the use and its proximity to Palomar Airport, staff feels in
this case a heliport is not necessarily incompatible with
the other uses, however, has added a condition to require a
one year review of the use by the Planning Director to
ensure its compatibility.
The conditional use permit would allow the sale and con-
sumption of alcoholic beverages in the restaurant and club
house. Staff feels that alcoholic beverages are a normal
.part of a club house and restaurant use. The serving of
alcoholic beverages at this site would not create detri-
mental impacts to surrounding properties and would not be
injurious to the public health and welfare. Staff can make
all the required findings for a conditional use permit and
therefore recommends approval.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Director has determined that this project will
not create a significant impact on the environment and has
therefore issued a Negative Declaration, dated February 20,
1981~
-3-
.. J
I' •
IV. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve
the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director,
adopt Resolution No. 1782, recommending APPROVAL of
ZC-223 to the City Council and adopt Resolution Nos:
1783 and 1784 APPROVING SDP 80-13 and CUP-186, based on
the findings and subJect to the conditions contained
therein .
. ATTACHMENTS
PC Resolution No. 1782 (ZC-223)
PC Resolution No. 1783 _(SDP 80-13}
PC Resolution No. 1784 (CUP-186)
Location and Zoning Map (Exhibit "Y",.dated February 20, 1981}
~ackground Data Sheet
Reduced Site Plan
Disclosure Statement
Traffic Impact Report
Environmental Documents
Exhibits "A" -"E", dated February 20, 1981
BH:ar .
3/5/81
-4-
(j)
. -
LOCATION MAP
--------
------
.. .•
M-
\::C ,o CT-Q
E. 1,.l-1\&11" ''(' 2 -20 -81
-Z,oNtt-lG-\\,\p.f> • . I
· CA S lE . NO." J C2.23 f 5op,eq...;e,/ Cu Pp/.Sto
BACKGROUND DZ\'!~ SBEE,T
CASE NO: ZC-223/SDP 80-13/0JP-186
APPLICANT: VALLAS -------------
REOUFST AND !£CATION: Zone Change from L-C to CT-Q, Site Developnent Plan for
a recreation/corrmercial facility, and a conditional use permit for alcoholic
beverages.
LEGAL DESCRIPI'ION: That portj on of PaJ onm: Airport in IDt 6 of Rancho Agua
Hedionda, County of San Diego, Map No~ 852.
Assessors Parcel Nurr'ber: 213 010 10
Acres 17 No. of Lots. -------1·
GENERAL PIAN M1D ZONING
General Plan Land Use Designation --------
N/A N/A Density Alla.ved --------Density Proposed --------
Existing Zone ____ L-C ________ _ Pr opo s ~ Zone CT-Q ----""------
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
Zoning
North M
South P-M
East C (County)
West P-M
Land Use
Palanar Airport
Light Industrial
Vacant
. Light Industrial
PUBLIC FACILI'l'IES
School District
Water District
Sewer District •
N/A ·
carlsba.d
carlsbad .EDU's N/A -------------------------
Pub l • ·1· • d ted MARCII 4, 1981 ic Faci ities Fee Agreement, a __________________ _
-\ . (·~: ) ------------------------------
ENV;I:OONMEN'l'l\I., J.MPl\CT ASSESSMENT
--X--Nega_tivc Declaration, _issued Febnmr:y 70, J98J Log No.
E.I.R. Certified, dated ---------------
Other, --------------------------------
.....
t.. T'--l,4--. ~••,.o •.. , .. ,c.,., .... , ..... ..
,..... •• "' ....... ,,. c .... .
------
,~ . ,.--:., ' ·--) I . !\
! i..:
i ~:;:w•
I-.::_,...
t ; I .:"
ll
J ;
ii
....
·•
;
' )
••
If after the information you have submittucl has been rcvi(!wcd, it is d~t.erminccl
thnt further in[oi-r.mU.on is required, you will be so advised.
1',I'l'LIC.1\UT:
MEMBERS:
Name (individual, parln-.:rship, joint venture, corporation, synclication)
Ct?o. ·o,'<-S5o RmuM-S.•?A]c__w,,
Dusinesn 1\ddress
_:,_,r, -,.y 2 /
Telephone tjumbcr
LJL_" 'f/ e
Name ,-.
Business Address
Telephone Number
Name {individual, partner, joint
venture, corporation, syndication)
Business Address
·Telephone Number
Business Addre~s
Telephone Number
.Home Address
Telephone Number
HoJRe Address
Telephone Number
(Attach more sheets if necessary)
I/We declare under penalty of perjur}' that .the information contained in this dis-
clo_surc is true a11d correct and that it will remain true and correct and may be
relied upon as being true and correct until amended.
DY JJ/11. --. _/'l_g_c_n_t_· ,-Ownfr~,~r-a_r_t_:1-m-.r---------
CITY OF CARLSBAD
OLYMPIC GOLF-PALOMAR AIRPORT PROJECT
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS .
.. , ...
· Prepared by: BERRYMAN & STEPHENSON, INC.
200 North Ash.Street,
Suite 110 •
Escondido; CA 92027
CITY OF CARLSBAD
OLYMPIC.GOLF-PALOMAR AIRPORT PROJECT
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
I. INTRODUCTION
The proposed development is known as "Olympic Golf-Palomar Airport."
The site for this -development is an 18.04-acre parcel of land located
immediately south of Palomar Airport Road and immediately west of
El Camino Real, in the City of Carlsbad (see Exhibit I).
The proposed project, ~s of August 17, 1980, consists of three major
land use components: 1) a 6-tennis court racquet club with a club-
house/restaurant, swimming pool, and 4 racquet ball courts; 2) a
48-room motel; and 3) an 18·-hole "Olympic Golf" .course. The res tau rant
facility is proposed with a bar and seating for 150.
Under the City of Carlsbad's current land use plan, the subject site
is· zoned for "governmental facilities" ("G" designation).
Areas immediately adjacent to the subject sit~ are zoned f9r ''planned
industrial" development ("PI" designation), as shown in Exhibit II.
The proposed project would require a zone change to "commercial-
tourist" ("C-T" designation). The specified uses permitted under the
C-T zone are given in Appendix A.
Development of the subject site, as proposed, will result in t~e
generation of additional vehicular traffic directly onto Palomar
Airport Road and El Camino Real. The magnitude and impact of this
additional traffic is the subject of this analysis.
II. TRIP GENERATION
The proposed project is characterized by a combination of normally
compatible land uses and building types. This project does feature
a rather unique facility known as Olympic Golf, proclaimed as being
different in playing characterisitics from miniature golf or a "par 3"
course.
Due to the ~~riety ~f independent variables that can be used in
analyzing the proposed project, the following estimations are given
for a "worst case" (i.e., maximum trip generation) situation and a
"best case" (i.e., minimum trip generation) situation.
Two wid~ly usid sources of trip generation data are the Institute of
TransportationEngin~er's (!TE) Trip Generation report and the San Diego
Comprehensive Planning Organization's {CPO) Traffic Generators report.
A review of both d.ocuments reveals sufficient data on facilities
similar or identical to those proposed for trip generation estimation
purposes.
Racquet Club
The ITE report describes racquet clubs as privately owned facilities
with tennis courts --some with swimming pools, racquet ball courts,
and other minor gymnastic facilities. The following excerpt is taken
from the ITE report:
"The racquet clubs surveyed generate on the average
42.6 weekday vehicle trip ends per court, 8.9 weekday
vehicle trip ends per 1000 gross square feet of
building area, 35.6 weekday vehicle trip ends per
employee and 0.59 weekday vehicle trip ends per
member. In some cases the peak hour generated trips
coincide with the peak hour of the adjacent street
traf fie ... "
The report further states "It is believed that the number of courts
and members are best related to trip making."
For the proposed project, the number of courts (i.e., 6 tennis courts),
and the square footage of the clubhouse (15,186 square feet, including
balcony) are known.
Utilizing the average trip generation rates. given above, the proposed
racquet club facilities could generate as many as 256 vehicle ~rip
ends per average weekday (based on the number of counts) or as few
as 135 vehicle trip ends per average weekday (based on building size).
Weekend trip generation for a racquet club can be expected to be
around 20% lower than during the weekday.
Motel
The proposed 48-room motel can be analyzed on the basis of trip ends
generated per room. The ITE report indicates fairly good correlation
between total rooms and trip generation. However, the highest
correlation coefficient is achieved when actual occupancy rates are
known.
As an estimation of the occupancy rate for the proposed motel, the
developer suggests that 60% would be a. reasonable figure for the first
three years of operation.
1he average trip generation rate for a motel in California is 10.14
vehicle trip ends per occupied room. Thus, it can be expected that
the, proposed 48-room motel, at 6-0% occ~pancy, will generate 292
vehicle trip ends per average weekday.
-2-
If the proposed motel is successful, the occupancy rate should
approach 90% of the available rooms, or 438 vehicle trip ends per
average weekday.
Weekerid trip generation for a motel can be expected to be around
10% to 15% lower than during the weekday.
Golf Course
The proposed Olympic Golf Course requires approximately 10 acres
of land. By comparison, most golf courses require 100 to 300 acres.
The developer estimates that up to 60,000 rounds of golf could be
played annually on the proposed course (or 165 rounds per day on an
average). Nost public go1f courses generate between 60,000 and
120,000 rounds, annually.
Although Olympic Golf is unconventional, with respect to the land
acreage required for the course layout, the playing characteristics
are similar to those of a 9-hole par-3 course. 18-holes of Olympic
Golf are said to require around l½ hours of playing time, in
comparison to l½ to 2 hours for 9-holes of par-3 golf.
Trip generation data for golf courses is limited. The best correlation
is found between trip generation and the number of parking spaces
(i.e., 8.2 vehicle trip ends per parking space per average weekday).
Since the proposed project does not differentiate parking by use, no
assumptions can be made at this time regarding parking provisions for
the Olympic Golf facility.
Conservatively, if it is assumed that the average car occupancy for
patrons of the Olympic Golf facility is 2.0, and the average group
has 3 players, 165 rounds per day would generate 496 vehicle trip
ends per day (i.e., 165 rounds/day x 3 players/round~ 2.0 players/
car x 2 trip ends/car= 496 trip ends/day). This figure does not
include employees, delivery vehicles, etc.
If only 30,000 rounds were played annually (as suggested by the
developer as a more conservative estimate) the trip generation rate
would be 248 trip ends per average weekday.
Restaura·nt
The proposed restaurant within the clubhouse complex is expected to
generate traffic independent of the racquet club, motel, and Olympic
Golf facilities. Under a "worst case" assumption, the 150-seat
restaurant may be expected to generate 1.20 vehicle trip ends per
average weekda½ or 180 total trip ends per average weekdpy.
Since it is reasonable to assume that a good number of restaurant
patrons will be generated from motel guests, racquet club members,
and Olympic Golf players, it is unlikely that the "worst case"
situation described above would occur. A conservative estimate of
independent restaur~nt patrons is 50% of the total business. Under
this assumption, the proposed restaurant may be expected to generate
90 vehicle trip ends per average weekd?Y•
-3-
Weekend trip generation for a quality restaurant can be expected
to be around 25% to 40% higher than during the weekday.
Total Traffic
The total traffic generated by the proposed project will range from
a low (i.e., "best case" situation) of 765 trip ends per average
weekday, to a high (i.e., "worst case" situation) of 1,370 trip
ends per average weekday. An average of these two figures is 1,068
trip ends per average weekday. This average figure is used in the
proceeding analysis.
However, no specific recommendation should be construed as to the use
of any of these figures. •
III. TRIP DISTRIBUTION
The site plan for the subject project indicates two driveways are
proposed --one on Palomar Airport Road (approximately 100 feet west
of the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real);
and one on El Camino Real (approximately 500 feet south of the same
intersection). All entering and exiting traffic generated by the
proposed development will be distributed via these two points of
access.
The CPO's regional trip distribution model is not applicable in site
specific cases of limited size and/or· land use intensity. Thus,.no
attempt was made to utilize this information.
Although specific trip distribution data for the area around the
project site is currently unavailable, it can generally be assumed
that the external trip "attractors" in the area and turn movement
restrictions will result in the following distribution of project
generated traffic:
Entering Traffic
35% eastbound right-turn on Palomar Airport Road
40% southbound right-turn on El Camino Real
25% northbound left-turn on El Camino Real
Exiting Traffic
20% right-turn onto Palomar Airport Road
50% left-turn onto El Camino Real
30% right-turn o~to El Camino Real
Exhibit III. illustrates the distribution.of traffic based on the
above assumptions.
-4-@
IV. TRAFFIC IMPACTS
The traffic generated by the proposed project will have a significant
impact on the adjacent street system. It is estimated that approxi-
mately 70% of all entering and exiting traffic will pass through the
intersection of Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real.
Palomar Airport Road Driveway
The proposed driveway on Palomar Airport Road, as shown on the latest
site plan (8/17/80), could ·create undue congestion and accident
potential. The proximity of the intersection of Palomar Airport
Road and El Camino Real is such that traffic entering and exiting
this driveway will interrupt the high speed, high volume flow of
traffic on Palomar Airport Road.
Of particular concern are the weaving conflicts -created by development-
generated traffic on Palomar Airport Road turning into and out of the
proposed driveway while street traffic is turning right at the
intersection with El Camino Real (see Exhibit IV). As shown in Exhibit
I~ any substantial queueing in· the right-turn lane will block the
driveway --preventing vehicles from entering or exiting.
El Camino Real Driveway
The proposed driveway on El Camino Real poses the problem of potential
high left-turn ingress and egress. During peak hours of traffic·
generation, left-turn ingress and egress could be seriously impeded
by conflicting traffic flow on El Camino Real. If sufficient ~elay
is experienced by left-turning vehicles, the build up of a queue could
interfere with on-site circulation and/or northbound through traffic
on El Camino Real (see Exhibit IV).
Ln-Site Parking & Circulation
115 on-site parking spaces are proposed. Based on the preceding trip
generation analysis-, this provision may not be sufficient.
The City of Carlsbad specifies parking requirements for motels and
restaurants. However, no specifications are available for the racquet
club or the Olympic Golf facilities. Since 72 of the 115 spaces are
required by the City for the motel and restaurant, only 43 spaces
remain to· be designated for use in conjunction with the racquet club
and the Olympic Golf facility.
On-site circulation is restricted to two-way movement along a single
parking aisle .parallel to El Camino Real. If all parking spaces
were filled at any given instance, drivers looking for parking would
have to either double park in the aisle or circulate out onto Palomar
Airport Road or El Camino Real.
-5-
,
@
The lack of a continuous on-site circulation system places a high
priority on assurihg adequate on-site parking. No street parking
will be available within the immediate project area. However, the
opportunity for common parking may become available with future
development to the south, along El Camino Real.
V. ALTERNATIVE LAND USES
An alternative land use for the subject 18-acre site is "light
industrial." Developed as _an industrial park, the site would
generate traffic similar in intensity to that of the proposed
development.
As an estimate of trip generation potential, the ITE report suggests
the use of a rate of 59.9 trip ends per acre per average weekday.
The CPO report suggests a much higher rate of 90.8 trip ends per
acre per average weekday. Thus, the range of total traffic generated
by ligh industrial development of the subject site is 1,081 vehicle
trip ends per day (ITE rate) to 1,638 vehicle trip ends per day
(C_PO rate).
Based on the above estimations, the proposed commercial-tourist
development would in all probability generate ·no more (and· perhaps
less) traffic than an industrial park development.
With an industrial park development, it is reasonable to assum~ that
at least one driveway will be required on Palomar Airport Road and on
El Camino Real. A greater opportunity may exist for joint use or
common access with adjacent properties along both streets.
VI. CONCLUSIONS & RECO:t,..1MENDATIONS
The analysis presented herein suggests that the Olympic Golf-Palomar
Airport project will impact the adjacent street system. The magnitude
of additional traffic generated by the proposed development is not
as significant as the access and circulation problems created if the
current site plan is adopted.
The proposed development will generate between 765 and 1,370 vehicle
trip ends per average weekday. By comparison, an industrial park
developme~t on the same site will most likely generate between 1,081
and 1,638 vehicle trip ends per average weekday. Weekend traffic
generated will be slightly lower than on weekdays for the proposed
development, and significantly lower for an indu~trial park.
The distribution of traffic generated by the proposed development
could create conges~ion and delay on both Palomar Airport Road and
El Camino Real. The relocation of driveways further away from the
intersection of these two street~ wi11•mitigate the impacts to some
degree.
-6-
It is strongly recommended that the driveway on Palomar Airport
Road be relocated at least 500 feet away from the intersection, and
that median islands be constructed to control turn movements on
both Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real.
On-site parking and circulation .provisions may be inadequate, as
currently proposed. Additional parking and the introduction of
an internal "loop" system are effective mitigating measures that
can be taken.
The developer's site plan should be revised, as necessary, to
reflect the recommendations presented herein .
...
-7-
EXHIBIT I. OLYMPIC GOLF-PALOMAR AIRPORT
SITE PLAN
' • °'<l'~i:lll'IA __ ,.._.,.,.."""*-~"""~""-""'"-""C:a ___ w::zita·. ____ _, ______ _
Pl
NRR
..... ~············•·"·······-······· ···••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
G
Pl
Pl
...
Pl
•••••••e••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••see
G
... . . . • . . . . ! . : . : ! : . . . .
·' .. ..
OS
•••• _., •••••• ····••1t•• .... ..
•••• ••• .. . .. •· : ~ . -:: ............. ··········· .. ··············"········· ........ :.
G
/ !
. . . . : . . . . : :
Pl
·• ........... ···········:: : .. . .... : NRR ·····•••• : .... : ....
.• •· . : ···••••••• i .. . ... :•• . . ...
·•. ·······••••• : ···•••••• .. •. •••••• .... -r· .• ... . .. . . .. . . ~ .. . .. OS ·····:············· .....• : ..... . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . ••••••••······ : ••••••••••········ • : ··~·········•4o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ·• . . . . . . . ,...... : : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : •·.. ..•· : : . . ... ,,. : :
= OS : : . . . : : : . . .
RLM
: : •••••····· : : .......... ;,
: : •••••••• . . . : : : . . •••••••••••••······· : : •••• ••••• ••c-····· • : p············
L.. :~L.d:lc'll~-----!l:~---iil·_·l!l··Cll:·.·=_"tl!I!'~-.. ----------~
t=n·_, CITY OF CARLSBAD LAND USE
◊16
150' Li
'
Palomar Airport Road 64<==1
· ·=~~=::~~-z=~z::1~~:~~~:.:. ~=?~!J~Si2!"~lt7:tilAWrili~J#i,'·· , j c.:::> 1 4 7 ~ 107 •
187 (?
PROJECT SITE
214
133
:1
'•;,. ,,:·267
ON-SITE QUEUEING
PROJECT SITE
LEFT TURN QUEUEING
D
· EXHIBIT IV.
TRAFFIC U\!JPACT AT DRIVEWAYS
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSSAD, CALIFORNIA 920'.::S
. .. •. •··
....
TELEPHONE:
• {71<1) 4'.lS-5621
NEGATIVE DFCLt\PJ\TIO~
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Southwest corner of El Camino Real and Palomar
Ai~rt Road. .
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: -~.:.$:i,J:~ Develo:gnent ·Plan 63 unit rrotel, tennis courts,
olympic golf <?9urse, ra.31:etball, restaurant, and cocktail lounge on a 16
acre site_; a change of zone from L-C (Limited Control) to CT-Q (Tourist
Comnerc1al), and a conditional use p=" .. rmit to allow the sale of alcoholic
beverage·s.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environi11cn.tal review of the abo~tc described
project pursu~mt to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California
'Environn,cntal Qm.lity Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the
·City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (decbraticn
• that the project ,,r:i11 not have a signific.mt impact on the environri1ent) :is hereby
issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Planning Dep3rtmcnt.
A copy of the Ner,ativc Declaration with supportive doctm1cnts is on file in the
·Planning Department, City lb 11, 1200 EJ m Avenue 1 Carlsbad, CA. 92008. Coirnncnts
from the pub~i~_arc invited. Please submit co1rn~cnt~~,:::ifl\~i1j_:t::ir1~i.;J9_':~l1?}'Jiqp,P/D~.'.-r,;·,~'-0 '; ... ,.,,( Department w1t1nn ten (10) clays of date of publ1cat10n. • .• •. •• ., .... •.•··•,:•.::,·:.
DATED: February 20, ·1981
CASE NO: ZC-223/SDP 80-13/CUP-186
• AJ>PL I CANT: VALIAS
PURLl Sll DATE: :Pebruary 25, 1981
• . • • t"'•-7 ,,;,--, ! ~----.., ;f,· •
SIG!\11.m: • '--,•~--'--.,., · I 1 • ·/ ... /·
JAMES C. !l:\Gi\'fA~l ·~ "/. :< .... ____ . "
.m.rector of Plannine . -< / . • ~· .. • ,·. -C~ty of Carlsbad ;, .. ". :· , ... ,
,. ' //
1200 t:l.M /\VEtJUE
CARLSBAD, CALlf:OFlNIA 92008
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:
'
<titp of <1:arlsbab
PUBLIC NOTICE OF PREPARATION
The Planning Department of the City of Carlsbad intends to prepare a
X Negative Declaration, ___ .Conditional Negative Declaration,
. Environmental Impact Report for the following project: ---
Project Description: 63 unit motel, tennis courts, ·olvm:eic
• g9lf course, raquetball, restaurant, and cocktail· 1ourige·
TELEl'HONE:
014) 729-1181
• on a 16 • acre site;· a change of zone from L-C (Limited Control)
• to· cT-·z {To·urist Commercial) ; and· a· c·orid.H;.1pnai use· . permJ t
• to ·allow the sale ·of alcoholic bevera·ges, • •
.... • ............ .
~ Project address/Location:. ·southwest corner.· of· ·;eaJomar Airport
Road and El· Camino Real. . . . ' ~. . .
Anticipated significant impacts: • No signif'icant adver·se •••••••
environmental impacts are associatea·with·this·project.
• We need to know your ideas about the effect this project might have on
the environment and your suggestions fo-r ways the pi-ojcct could be re-
vised to reduce or avoid any signtficant cnviron,'11.ental damage. Your
ideas will help us decide what issues to analyze in the environmental
review of this project.
Your comments on the.environmental impact of the proposed project may
be submittc<l in writing to the Planning Department, 1200 Elm Avenue,
Carlsbad, CA 92008, no later than Februar:y 25, 1981 .
D/\TEll: February 2 , 19 81 C..Zz.......-u..,, C ,...---, .
CASE NO: ZC 223/SDP. 8·0-13/CUP
APPLICANT: VALLAS • •
.
Planning Director
City of Cnrlsha<
\
FEE $100.00
.RECEIPT NJ: bf3tf~;~
\l' ~ J-i0 ~
•• ENVJ.RO't\.T\1ENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM -Part I \\.,,.
(To be Completed. by APPLICANT)
CASE NO: f,ZJ.' /J_-S"°~-(-1)_)
DATE: • _ _j_t/'J...[p /-"8_t ...... ~ _
Applicant:_ ·_.;._J_,1::t-_2.<i.h.olii _ _liA.....,t....;L=--'-.....;t4;.........::•<-------------
Ar1dress of Applicant: _2..y_~_.Lt4_-£,.....,-_______ _
Jd.lr;, !-.~,._/:L~1.J ___ (_19:.-,__ I F 9 )_ (;) 2 tj_ _____ ---
Phone Number: (7'1) -~ l, -L'-f...)_J. ___ _
Name, address and phone number of person to be contacted (if other thai~ Applicant):
,
____ <;~..2.-~1:-..:5:_.._c.=·-'-"~'i.£--------------
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Dcscr:;.ptio~ of Project: ·Jc./o-f-£ ( /2zs~~-T dcyF fotSv/( e,1.,-f---• -~ I
. l..~ ,tk C,J £ ~ o:½::'.'l 5 ~ --Z-C ti rl c .S £'a. c" , (, ft c-f h E S ,11 t.,Ji ~ /--v I • I 1
Cl?..r-f G'_J /-.. u.........,,.. f-r: ; c=v .5 w , JV\ ·1 N ti ~ o 't) /
Project Location/Address: __ V,HPN gr'-t1,~( 14 ,.,,( fL
/J ·,. t:1, ,J ,, f2 E Ct.. { -U-+o H111:J /J} os . pf$[ 19 A -I l. _.1__.a )ll ·
Assessor Parcel Number: :2 I 3 .: • O JO -~,or' tJ/ IO .
Zone of Subject Property: ( G-) 7 of c.>,,,v M f. ii r P J4-(, (,_ ·-I ,· r"S'
Proposed Use of Site: --12..-C la (H HA 4<'.at I,-I /21. l'A f <t I e, N
/4/4-/4 / -k ( c/1 f t--f c OJ elf· Y £Ii) b p1.c l,'\_i-
I
List all other applicable applications related to this project:--·----
__ C_..;_P_fl __ -_3µ,:.o~({;....£,.;;__-=(' _ _.;..h;:....c;uc..-. vt-s~E...--_-L._·~o rf~j..,_, t~o ___ N_~_/_·-----'t(,....__S;;;...;;~-----,lr--D-=-c.!:d« ;-I-
ND 1
2.
3 ..
.-
4 ..
5.
6.
7.
Describe the 2.ctivi.ty area, inciud:ing distinguishin·g .
natural and manmade characteristics;. also provide precise
slope analysis when appropriate. _ _ _ • -I.
• fA•r <'h 'J y · t > _ h .,;/. -(,~ < '1 {/,;_f-;_ t11J Q < e ..,-(-P1 d f o, I'/
J "-f .... d 4 , ... /, _ A µe( o f £ ,I h:•..,{ ,£_j f q_ -:. ,_,, 'I -1 .s
R /II llVf:.,:__ ( ~,1£ ll-u.. 0 N · W .!' .s ' c. ~11 ~ _p.A F . f_
C. O'\ l'\. Cl\. I r:?-t-. • . • Describe energy conservation measures· incorporated into
the design and/or operation of the project. (For a more
specific discussion of· energy conservation requirements
see of the City's EIR.Guidelines).
-i-,-t-l lo u_, l·c.fc ,v S s:_· -v d ( • e._ ·'":'v-r _ ,::C, v-c, f ~. 1./ '-) "'.9
·v,,.1J.o.,.:JS -ftNl._ €t<Vli1 Je-v1/V5 f,-CS"-(,,,,_'{,.,,J
If residential, include the number of units, schedule of
unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of
household size expected.
/I Ip;
. .
If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood,
city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area,
. c..·,.1d loading facilities.
ti /fl-
If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per
shif~, and loadi~g facilities.
H.( I+.
._ • .
If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated
employrr.cnt per shift, estimated occupancy, loading
facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the
project. --'\'
..
•
·1.-' -ENVIRONMENTAL "IMPACT ANALYSIS
Answer the.following.questions by placing a check in the
appropriat·e space. (Discuss all .items checked yes. Attach
additional sheets as nece~saryl.
YES NO •
1) _could the project significantly change presept
land_uses in the vicinity of t~e-~ctivity?
2). Could th~ activity affect the use.of a rec-.
reational area, or·area of important
aesthetic value?
3) Could the activity affect the functioning of
an_esta.blished community or neigliborhocd?-
..
4) Could the activity result in the displacement
• of community residents?
5) Could the activity increase the numb.er of low
·and modera½e cost housing units in the city?
6) Could the activity decrease the ·number of low
·and modest cost housing units in the city?
7) ~re any of the natural or man-made features
in the activity area uniquG, that ts, not:
found in other parts of the County, State,
or Nation?
Bl Could the activity significantly affect a
historical or archaeological site or its
settings?
9) Could the activity significantly affect the
.potential use, extraction, or conservation
of a scarce-natural resource?
-· 10}" Does the activity area serve as a habitat,
food source nesting place, source'of_water,
etc. for rare or endangered wildlife on fish
species?
11) Could the activity significantly affect fish;
wildlife or plant life?
·12) ~re there· any rare or endanger~d plant
species in the activity area? ..
13) Could the activity change existing features
of any of the city's lagoons, b;:iys, or
•• tidelands? • •
··----
. --
v
V.
14) Could. the activity change existing features of
any of the city's beaches?
-15)-Could· the activity result in the erosion or
elimination of agricultural lands'.?
16)· Could the activity serve to encourage develop-
rnerr!: of presently undeveloped area_s or intesify
development of already developed areas?
17). Will the activity require a variance from
established environmental standards (air, water,
noise, etc)?
18) • Will the activity"requi;~ certification,,
authorization or issuance of a permit by any
.local, state or federal enviromm:mtal control
agency?
l9J Will the activity require issuance of a
variance or conditional use permit by the city?
20) Will the ac~ivity involve the application, use,
_or disposal of potentially hazardous·matcrials?
_21} . Will the activity involve construction of
~acilities in a flood plain? •
22} Will the activity .invclve construction of
facilities on a slope of 25 -percent or greater?
23) Will the activity involve construction of
facilities in the area of an active fault?
24}' Could the acttvity result in the generation
of s~gnificant amounts of noise?,
25) • Collld the activity result in the generation
of significant amouncs pf dust? •
26) Will the activity involve the burning of brush,
trees, or other materials?
27} Could the activity result in a significant
change in the quality of any portion of the
. region's air or water resources? (Should note,
surface, ground water, off-shore).
28) Will the project $Ubstantinlly increase fuel
consumption (eicctr.i.city, oil, natural gas,
etc.)?
29) Will there be a.significant change to existing
land form?
..
..
-4-
V
30)
.•
(a) indicate ·est:im&ted grading to be done in
cubic yards ---~-rJc, ... ~ ~~
• (b} pcrce·nt,!.c;e of. a:l tera.tion to the. present
land form . L c-:s;: s --J~/1 .. F" .S-1/...,
(c) maximum height of cut or fill slope::;
• ·"2--L..J--,--'-----
Will the activi.ty result in substantial increases
in the use of utilities, sewer~, _drai~s. or
str.eets?
31} Is the activity ca.rried ·Out as part of z. J°ar9er·
project or. series of projects?
..
-s-
•
..
II. STATEMENT OF NON-SIGNIFICANT "ENVIRONMJJ-i7'AL EFFECTS
If you have answered yes to one or more of the questions
• in Section I but you think the activity will have_ no
significant envirorunental effects, indicate your.reasons
below:
fZ l' 6 l l/.Ae cQ '
III~ CCMMENTS OR ELABORATIONS TO ilNY OF-TIIB QUESTIONS IN SECTION I
(If addi tier.al space is needed for m1swering ·any questions
attach additional sheets as may be needed).
S_igna tur~ •
\ (Person completing report
Date Signed ___ ]Y ______ ~ _____ : __ ·_?-._(;_· __ (_· 1~·~)>-~_--___ _
-6-