HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 98-48; Carlsbad Village Resort Hotel; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (4)5. 1998 M-.ee
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT)
CASE NO:
DATE RECEIVED:
/To A* complete by jiaff)
BACKGROUND
1. CASENAME: Carlsbad Village Resorf
2. APPLICANT: Heritage West Development Co.
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: ^370 La Jolla Village Dr
Suite 655 San Diego, CA 92122
4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 145 room . Hotel with 1 stnriP«^
over subterranean parking
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
Please check any of the environmenul factors listed below that would be poicmially affected by this
project. This would be any envirwimental factor that has at least one impact checked "Potentially
Significant Impact." or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" in the checklist
on the following pages.
Q Land Use and Pianning
[]]] Population and Housing
Q Geological Problems
• Water
I I Air Quality
Q Transportation/Circulation Q Public Services
• Biological Resources Q Utilities & Service Systems
Q Energy & Mineral Resources Q Aesthetics
Q Hazards Q Cultural Resources
• Noise Q Recreation
Q Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
•••EHO***
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
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 Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
• A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
"No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to. or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
• "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, 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 significant.
Based on an "EIA-Part 11". if a proposed project could have a potentiall) significant
effect on the environment, but a]] potentially significant 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 thc 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 projeci, then no additional
environmental documem is required (Prior Compliance).
When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant 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 projeci or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
Rev 03/28/96
• If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce 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.
• An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II 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 tlie
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Panicular attemion
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
Rev 03/28/96
Issues (and Supponing Infonnation Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be n^ared to and attac/tej)
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source Hs): ( )
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? ( )
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
( )
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? ( )
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established commimity (including a low-income or
minority community)? ( )
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ( )
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)?
( )
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( )
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? ( )
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( )
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
( )
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
( )
e) Landslides or mudflows? ( )
0 Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or filP
( )
g) Subsidence of the land? ( )
h) Expansive soiis? ( )
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
( )
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? ( )
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as fiooding? ( )
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significan Impact
Impact Unless t impact
Mitigatton
Incorporated
• • • SI
• • •
• • •
• • • IS
• • • SI
• • • • IS
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • • m • • •
• • • IXi
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • • IS
• • •
• • •
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supponing Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be li^ared to and attacfwd)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quaiity (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? ( )
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body?( )
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? ( )
f) Changes in thc quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
mterception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? ( )
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
( )
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( )
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
( )
V. AIR QUALITY Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
( )
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
( )
c) Alter air movement, moismre, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? ( )
d) Create objectionable odors? ( )
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or ffaffic congestion?
( )
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous interseaions) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? ( )
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearbv uses?
( )
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site'^
( )
c) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
( )
0 Conflicts with adopted policies supporting altemative
transportation (e.g. bus tumouts, bicycle racks)?
( )
g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts?
( )
Poieniially Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant Significan
Impaa Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
• • •
No
Impact
• • • 0
• • •
• • •
• • n
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • • JSI
• • • JS
• • • IS
• • • B
• • • IS
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supponing Information Sources):
(Supplemental docwne-itsmco^bei^etTidjo^
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would thc proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? ( )
b) Locally designaled species (e.g. hentage trees)?
( )
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( )
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vemal pool)?
( )
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
( )
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
( )
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( )
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of frmire value to the region and
the residents of the State? ( )
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? ( )
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? ( )
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? ( )
d) Exposure of people to existing soufces of potential
health hazards? ( )
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? ( )
X. NOISE. Would the proposai result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( )
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
( )
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or resuh in a need for new or altered government
services in any ofthe following areas:
a) Fire protection? ( )
b) Police protection? ( )
c) Schools? ( )
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significan Impact
Impaa Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • • IS
• • • m
• • • E
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • • s
Rev 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental doettmeiUs may be nferredto and attached)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
( )
e) Other govemmental services? ( )
XII. UnLITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS Would the
propcwal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities;
a) Power or natural gas? ( )
b) Communications systems? ( )
c) Local or regional water treatment or disn-ibution
facilities? ( )
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( )
e) Slorm water drainage? ( )
0 Solid waste disposal? ( )
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( )
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposai:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway''
( )
b) Have a demonsdiite negative aesthetic effect?
( )
c) Create light or glare? ( )
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paieontological resources? ( )
b) Dismrb archaeological resources? ( )
c) Affect historical resources? ( )
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
( )
e) Restria existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ( )
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significan
I Impact
No
Impact
b)
parks or olher recreational facilities?
( )
Affect existing recreational oppominities'
( )
• • •
• • Kl •
• • 0 •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • 1^ •
• • •
• • • ia
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • • 12
Rev. 03.^8/96
n^m Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINQS OF SIGNIHCANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce thc
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 Califomia history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Clumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
lhe effects of other cun-ent projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the subsumtial adverse efiects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
•
•
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
incorporated
•
•
•
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
No
Impacf
• E
• JS
• JS
Eariier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for die project.
Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Please use this area to discuss any of the environmental factors that were checked "No impact"
yet lack any infomiation citations and any factors that were checked "Potentially Significant
Impact" or "Potentially Sigmficant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." The City has
adopted a "Statement of Overriding Consideration" with regard to air quality and circulation
impacts resulting firom the normal buildout according to the General Plan. The following sample
text is intended to guide your discussion of the impacts to these environmental factors.
AIROVAUTY;
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consimiption and vehicle miles
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the
major contributors to air poUution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the
San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through die implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage altemative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of thc project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked
"Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because thc certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air
quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies lo all subsequent
projecis covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR. including this project, therefore, no
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
CIRCULATION:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These
generally include all firee way interchange areas and major intersections along Carisbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
9 Rev. 03/28/96
i^^ are projected to fail the Cit^ adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures
to ensure thc provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop
altemative modes of uimsportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway
onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been
incorporated into thc design ofthe project or are included as conditions ofproject approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cimiulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of
Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE^
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
10 Rev. 03/28/96
•••END***
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: RP 98-08/CDP 98-48
DATE: October 2, 1998
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CASE NAME: Carlsbad Village Resort Hotel
APPLICANT: Heritage West Development Companv
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 4370 La Jolla Village Drive. Suite 655.
San Diego. CA 92122 (619) 458-1141
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: October 8. 1997
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Development Permit for a
141 room hotel containing 3 stories over underground parking located on the east side of
Carlsbad Boulevard between Beech Avenue and Christiansen Wav excluding two parcels
containing a total of 10.000 square feet located at the northeast comer of Carlsbad Boulevard and
Christiansen Wav.
SUMMARY OF 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.
^ Land Use and Planning ^ Transportation/Circulation 1 1 Public Services
1 1 Population and Housing 1 1 Biological Resources 1 1 Utilities & Service Systems
1 1 Geological Problems 1 1 Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics
• Water I 1 Hazards 1 1 Cultural Resources
)<[ Air Quality Noise 1 1 Recreation
I I Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
I I I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
enviroiunent, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I I 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 NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I I 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 significant effect(s) on the enviromnent, but at
least one potentially significant effect 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 I 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 Master Environmental
Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01),
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
/0-/3'9'B
Planner Signature Date
Planning Director s Signature Date
Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
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 Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and hiunan
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 Impacf 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 adversely significant, 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 significant.
• Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but all potentially significant 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 (Prior Compliance).
• When "Potentially Significant Impacf is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant 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 effect on the environment.
Rev. 03/28/96
• If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce 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.
• An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impacf is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II 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.
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18; #2)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18;#2)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l:Pgs 5.6-1 -5.6-18;#2)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18;#2)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18;#2)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6;#2)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 -
5.5-6;#2)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6;#2)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal resuh in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fauh rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15;#2;#3)
b) Seismic ground shaking? ((#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-
15;#2;#3)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
((#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1.15;#2;#3)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15;#2;#3)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15;#2;#3)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 -5.1-15;#2;#3)
g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15;#2;#3)
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15;#2;#3)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15;#2;#3)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
11;#2)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11;#2)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
• • • X
• • • X
• • •
• • •
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-ll;#2)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11;#2)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-l;#2)
Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11;#2)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 -5..2-ll;#2)
Impacts to groundwater quality? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
11;#2)
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? ((#l:Pgs
5.2-1 -5..2-ll;#2)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or confribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
1 - 5.3-12;#2)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1
- 5.3-12;#2)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12;#2)
d) Create objectionable odors? ((#1 :Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12;#2)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal resuh in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-1-5.7.22;#2;#5)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22;#2;#5)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22;#2;#5)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22;#2;#5)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22;#2;#5)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting altemative
transportation (e.g. bus tumouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22;#2;#5)
g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -
5.7.22;#2;#5)
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
X • • •
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • •
• • •
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal resuh
in impacts to:
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24;#2)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage frees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 -5.4-24;#2)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24;#2)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vemal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 -5.4-24;#2)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (# 1 :Pgs 5.4-1
- 5.4-24;#2)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9;#2)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
1 -5.13-9;#2)
c) Resuh in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents ofthe State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5
& 5.13-1 -5.13-9;#2)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-
5;#2)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -
5.10.1-5;#2)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5;#2)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5;#2)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable bmsh,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5;#2)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-
15;#2;#4)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
1 -5.9-15;#2;#4)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemment
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
•
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
• m
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • •
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • •
• • •
• • • X
• • • X
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (#1,
pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.8-7)
e) Other govemmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
5.12.8-7)
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1-5.13-9)
b) Communications systems? (#1; pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
c) Local or regional water treatment or disfribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
e) Storm water drainage? (# 1 :Pg 5.2-8)
f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.3-7)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1 -5.11-5;#2)
b) Have a demonsfrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1 -5.11-5;#2)
c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 -5.11-5;#2)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paieontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
10;#2)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
10;#2)
c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10;#2)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
5.8-1 - 5.8-10;#2)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10;#2)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
5.12.8-7;#2)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-1 -5.12.8-7;#2)
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • •
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • •
• • •
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of Califomia history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
•
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
•
•
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
• H
• •
• •
Rev. 03/28/96
XVH. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis of this proposed hotel project has been completed through the General Plan
Update (GPA 94-01) and related Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR 93-01) as well as
the Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted for the Village Design Manual (SS 92-01). The
MEIR is cited as source number 1 in the preceding checklist and the Mitgated Negative
Declaration for the Village Design Manual is cited as source number 2. This proposal is
consistent with the applicable portions of the General Plan and the Village Design Manual and
within the scope of the projects anticipated by both the General Plan and the Village Design
Manual. Mitigation measures are proposed for the potential additional significant impacts due to
this development. All feasible mitigation measures identified in MEIR 93-01 and the Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the Village Design Manual (SS 92-01) which are appropriate to this
project have been incorporated into this project.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Carlsbad Village Resort Hotel project is a proposal to construct a 141 room three story hotel
with underground parking and related amenities on a 1.77 acre site located on the east side of
Carlsbad Boulevard between Beech Street and Christiansen Way in the Village Redevelopment
Area. The project grading design requires 12,000 cubic yards of cut, 2,000 cubic yards of fill,
and the export of 10,000 cubic yards. The site is currently vacant and contains no structures.
The amount of export proposed is a result of the underground parking garage. Adjacent land
uses to the project site include both residential and nonresidential development as well as public
streets which front the project in three areas. The site is designated as Village (V) on the General
Plan Land Use Map and is zoned Village Redevelopment (V-R). The property is located within
Land Use District Number 1 - Carlsbad Village Center. Hotels are identified as a provisional use
in Land Use District Number 1.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
I. c) Land Use Planning
Residential uses are located adjacent to the eastem and northeastem areas of the project site. The
proposed project must provide an adequate buffer along these areas of the site perimeter to
mitigate potential impacts on adjacent residential land uses. To accomplish this a decorative 6
foot high block wall shall be constmcted along the eastem and northeastem property lines. The
design of the wall shall be compatible with the proposed project's architecture to the satisfaction
of the Housing and Redevelopment Director. In addition, landscaping materials identified on the
Preliminary Landscape Plan for the planter areas adjacent to the eastem and northeastem
property lines shall consist of trees that are a minumum of 36 inch box size and shmbs which are
a minimum of 5 gallon size.
V. a) Air Quality
The implementation of projects that are consistent wdth and included in the updated 1994 General
Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled.
These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic
gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major
contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San
Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality ofthe region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage altemative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked
"Potentially Significant Impacf. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for air
quality impacts. This "Statement of Overriding Considerations" applies to all projects within the
scope of the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further
environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
VI. a) Transportation/Circulation
The implementation of projects that fall within the scope of and are included in the updated 1994
General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to
accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recoinmended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures
to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop
altemative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway
onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been
incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Sigmficant Impacf. This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Coimcil Resolution No. 94-246, included
a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of
Overriding Considerations" applies to all projects that fall within the scope of the General Plan's
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
X. b) Noise
The exterior noise assessment prepared for the project by Dudek & Associates contains the
following summary, "the primary noise source at the site is traffic noise from Carlsbad
Boulevard. The future exterior noise level at the hotel's proposed recreation area and patio area
at the northwestem portion of the site facing Carlsbad Boulevard would exceed the City's
exterior noise criteria. To mitigate the noise impact will require the constmction of a minimum
five-foot high noise barrier along the westem portion of the site. In addition, an interior noise
study will be required for the hotel prior to issuance of building permits. The interior noise study
will determine the interior noise level and type of sound insulation required to mitigate the noise
impact. To meet the City's noise requirement, it is anticipated that air-conditioning and/or
mechancial ventilation will be required, as well as sound-rated windows in certain rooms."
The required noise mitigation measures are as follows:
1. Mitigation of the noise impacts at the outdoor recreation and patio areas requires the
construction of a minimum five-foot high noise barrier along the westem portion of the
site. The location of the required five-foot high noise barrier is shown in the attached
Figure 3. The noise barrier may be constmcted as a wall, berm, or combination of both.
13 Rev. 03/28/96
The materials used to constmct the noise barrier are required to have a minimum surface
density of 3.5 pounds per square foot. Such materials may consist of masonry, 5/8-inch
Plexiglass, 3/8-inch tempered glass, or a combination of these materials. The barrier
must be designed and constmcted so that there are no openings or cracks. The required
noise barrier shall be shovm on the project's building plans and be constmcted prior to
the issuance of an occupany permit.
2. To comply with the City's interior noise standard, an interior noise analysis is required
for the project. The interior accoustical analysis will be required for the hotel prior to
issuance of building permits to ensure that interior noise levels would not exceed a CNEL
of 45 dB within the hotel rooms. To mitigate the interior noise impact, the hotel rooms
require air-conditioning and/or mechancial ventilation, and could require sound-rated
windows in certain rooms.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit a copy of the required
interior acoustical analysis documenting what constmction materials or measures must be
utilized to meet the required interior noise levels. In addition a letter signed by the
acoustician and the project architect and containing the project architect's registration
stamp shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit certifiying that the
recommendations of the interior acoustical analysis have been incorporated into the
building plans.
XIII. c). Aesthetics. Light & Glare
The project has the potential to have light and glare impacts on adjacent residential
property. To avoid this potential impact the applicant will be required to comply with the
following mitigation measure:
An exterior lighting plan including parking areas shall be submitted for Housing and
Redevelopment Director approval prior to the issuance of building permits. All lighting
shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or
property.
14 Rev. 03/28/96
III. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, Califomia, 92009,
(760) 438-1161, extension 4471.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City ofCarlsbad Planning Department.
2. Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Village Design Manual (SS 92-01), dated
Febmary 6, 1995, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
3. Summary of Field Investigation and Exploratory Drilling for the Carlsbad Hotel Site,
Carlsbad Boulevard and Beech Street (Project No. 06043-42-01) , dated April 2, 1998,
GEOCON Incorporated.
4. Carlsbad Village Resort Exterior Noise Assessment (Project No. 1645-11), dated May 11,
1998, Dudek & Associates.
5. Traffic Analysis for the Carlsbad Boulevard Hotel (Project No. 003897), dated April 27,
1998, Urban Systems Associates, Incorporated.
15 Rev. 03/28/96
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE^
1. A decorative 6 foot high block wall shall be constmcted along the eastem and
northeastem property lines. The design of the wall shall be compatible with the proposed
project's architecture to the satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment Director.
2. Landscaping materials identified on the Preliminary Landscape Plan for the planter areas
adjacent to the eastem and northeastem property lines shall consist of trees that are a
minimum of 36 inch box size and shmbs which are a minimum of 5 gallon size.
3. Mitigation of the noise impacts at the outdoor recreation and patio areas requires the
constmction of a minimum five-foot high noise barrier along the westem portion of the
site. The location of the required five-foot high noise banier is shown in the attached
Figure 3. The noise barrier may be constmcted as a wall, berm, or combination of both.
The materials used to constmct the noise barrier are required to have a minimum surface
density of 3.5 pounds per square foot. Such materials may consist of masonry, 5/8-inch
Plexiglas, 3/8-inch tempered glass, or a combination of these materials. The barrier must
be designed and constmcted so that there are no openings or cracks. The required noise
barrier shall be shown on the project's building plans and be constmcted prior to the
issuance of an occupancy permit.
4. To comply with the City's interior noise standard, an interior noise analysis is required
for the project. The interior acoustical analysis will be required for the hotel prior to
issuance of building permits to ensure that interior noise levels would not exceed a CNEL
of 45 dB within the hotel rooms. To mitigate the interior noise impact, the hotel rooms
require air-conditioning and/or mechanical ventilation, and could require sound-rated
windows in certain rooms.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit a copy of the required
interior acoustical analysis documenting what constmction materials or measures must be
utilized to meet the required interior noise levels. In addition a letter signed by the
acoustician and the project architect and containing the project architect's registration
stamp shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit certifying that the
recommendations of the interior acoustical analysis have been incorporated into the
building plans.
5. An exterior lighting plan including parking areas shall be submitted for Housing and
Redeyelopment Director approval prior to the issuance of building permits. All lighting
shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or
property.
16 Rev. 03/28/96
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
17 Rev. 03/28/96
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.
10 ^"^^n ^
Date Signature
18 Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL MITlUh'ION MONITORING CHECKLISTMge 1 of 1
CO
CO
o>
Q.
Q
O
00
o
I
CO
05
in
HI
o *^
o
X
o tn o> CC
o a n
•D
(Q
.Q W ra O
ill
H O UJ
o
Q.
o
LU
Q
d
LU
z
< z o
Q
Z o o
LU H < Q
_i
$ O Q:
Q.
CL
<
to x: -9 D)*- E
E Q> to
OJ lis
o o <
=5 o
!!> S
D Ci. (0 CO
ra 0)
Q. W
ra c
x: o ra
0)
Q.
a?
c
< .w 5
o o (D 52 .c
(0 c o
•.c: "D >»
P> c w
T3 Q. 0) p
4_> I—
ra o °^
e-<
o .£ o c 0) ra
N
ra o
OJ _
E §
c 0)
.2 ra
.§>2 ~ w E ts _ ra
ra Q.
"E E 0 —
E 2 c •£
o o > E c c 0 o
"D
C
ra
0
c
0 E
0
Q.
E
•o
c ^ ra CD
•D CN
.9> C
Q..2
E "G
O 0 O CO c
0
0
X2
Ui ra x:
0 k_ D (/>
ra
0
T3 o O
(0 0 o
o
0
E
c c .2 P i ^ la 9^
O "D D) o
O .2 iti 00
^ 0 52 =
H :2 £ CQ
ra E
0
CC
c o
•a iS
^ g 0 c
> 0)
Q.
E
c
OQ.
CO
ra CL 0
O)
c
£
3 ' tf) (Q O
c o
re D)
c
0 E
>
— 0
0
I-
•E "5 w >
o -D
X 0
cc
X> 0 0
ro _
c
0
<o ro ro 0 5
*i5 CD
m = i~
0 0
c C
ro (o
0
= T3 ro 5
c
0 =
It
o a. o o
•D Q-
ro c
i= (D
5 g
0) o .-S 0
x: .br 2 Q ro
E
O CJ.
.0 0 P' 0
I
O 08
O O)
0 o
£ X
£^
> o
o ro o w
0 T3 Q. C ro ro o
E
ro *i
£.0
2 a.
ro E
%^
ro
ro E
(0
(0 0 0 i;; Q) ro
E ^_ .y
0 o i_ *->
CL
ro
0 Ui
«= ro
0) ro
T3
Ui B
ro s
c ro
0 Q.
ro
E^
0 S-
ro o
Ui
_t Q.
(A J3
C 3
C^ ^
roE ro
0
^ w
= X
^1
0 Q. O O .E
CL (O
CO
E
0) o
w $: 3 <i>
O T3 X 0
cc
CO
0 0
I— x: Ion ed 03
L_ o 0 ro 'L_ ts ro ro
.Q 0
0 sz
* Ui c
o o c c
.c O) o
x X
.4—* (0
o (/) ro
0 0
> w
E he E O
c c
E o
ro ort o CL
C
(0 0
c Ui o 0
O
CO
_ c
I-
O) o
.E ^
w > 5 <i> o -a
X 0
CC
o 0
QL i_ O
-.2 2 0
1^0
X .E o 0) x: ro 0 X
i_
£ 0 .E
TJ ^
<U Ul
"5 0
ll *^ IT)
w <2
« E °
ro .E ro
ro = T3 O 3 0 = JD 0 O X
0
Ui
go
^ S o
.2 ro =
0 w ^ c .J2 JO
— '~ OJ
c 0 > < £ 0
T3 S
Oi o
O-S X 0 cc
^1
p ro Q. _ Q.
Ui ro
Ul o
ro •«
m CJ Si 0) ro .h= Q
si
o" i2
OJO) E c > E
^ 0 0) -3 T3 Q. — 0 O #v D)
E E
TJ T3
ro ro J
i' l 8
ic o c
0)X ro 2 0
0 0)^ X o 0 E -
c- -o .2
< W C3.
in
0)
E
0)
Q. E
c
0)
i3
0)
is
O) "O
:'5 c E "
0)
If
ii
— .!2
< ra =o
OT £ Q.
E '
0) O
cr:
y
ra
Q.
ra
O)
0) <
o) Q. ra
0)
is ra 3 Q. OT
0) ra
Q «
II
. c •5.2
« ra
.I'E
:i .'
i -r
o
LM
ttrm SIB
Dr
Dno
AIV
¥
>-.if.i'.;
BASE TOPO/GRADINC SOURCE: Dudek k Associates. Inc.. May 1998
CARLSBAO BLVD
Carlsbad Village Resort - Acoustical Assessment Report
Noise Barrier Locations and Heights
FIGURE