HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-03-19; Planning Commission; Resolution 4061.’
*e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4061
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
RESTAURANT ON A 1.02 ACRE SITE ON PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 925 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND EAST OF
PASEO DEL NORTE IN THE COASTAL ZONE IN THE
SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE CITY IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 3.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO DEVELOP A DRIVE-THRU
CASE NAME: CARL’S JR./GREEN BURRITO DRIVE-THRU
RESTAURANT
CASE NO. : SDP 96-05/CUP 96-07/CDP 96-06
WHEREAS, Carl Karcher Enterprises, “Developer”, has filed a vc
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Jung Tom/The
Company, “Owner”, described as:
Parcel 3 of Parcel Map No. 195 as recorded on January 30,
1970 in San Diego County, File No. 18100; and a portion of
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 17542 as recorded on June 27,1995
in San Diego County, File No. 1995-0267703
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 19th day of February
the 5th day of March 1997, and the l9th day of March 1997, hold a duly noticed public hc
as prescribed by law to consider said request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all test;
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staf
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all f
relating to the Negative Declaration.
~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Pk
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Pla
Commission does hereby APPROVE the Negative Declaration accordi
Exhibit "ND" dated November 8, 1996, and "PII" dated November 5,
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findincs: -
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzec
considered Negative Declaration dated November 8, 1996, the environmental in
therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to approvin
project. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, the Planning Commj
finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect (
environmen't and thereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration.
2. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration dated Novemb
1996, reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the C
Carlsbad.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Pla~
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of March 1997, b
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Nielsen, Commissioners Compas, Heineman, P
and Savary
NOES: Commissioners Monroy and Welshons
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
A
ATTEST:
- MICHAEL J. HOLZMKLER
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 4061 -2-
NEGATIW DECLARATION
Project AddresdLocation: 920 Palomar Airport Road. South side of Palomar Airport Road
and east of Paseo del Norte, City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California.
Project Description: Demolition of existing nurseryland use and construction of a 3,064
square foot Carls Jr./Green Burrito drive thru restaurant with
parking, landscaping and proposed playgound apparatus.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said'review, a
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within thirty (30) days
of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Eric Munoz in the Planning
Department at (6 19) 43 8- 1 16 1, extension 4441.
DATED: NOVEMBER 8,1996
CASE NO: SDP 96-O5/CUP 96-071CDP 96-06
CASE NAME: CARLS JWGREEN BUWTO DRIVE THRU RESTAURANT
PUBLISH DATE: NOVEMBER 8,1996 -
MICHAEL J. HmMILHR
Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-11 61 - FAX (61 9) 438-0894
e 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: SDP 96-06/CUP 96-07/CDP 96-06
DATE: November 5, 1996
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Carls Jr/Green Burrito Restaurantillrive-Thru
2. APPLICANT: Nancy Patterson
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 9315 First Street, Suite U-130,
Encinitas, California; (6 19) 634- 1 122
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: April 25, 1996/ Complete Application as of 10-25-96
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proiect site has frontage onto Palomar Airport Road at 920
Palomar Airport Road and is currently the site of Nurseryland. Also involved is a portion of the
lot adiacent to and east of the subiect site to be used for parking. This development proposal is
for the construction of a 3,064 sauare foot combination Carl’s Jr./Green Burrito restaurant with
243 sa. ft. of outdoor patio seating, a 450 sq. ft. playground apparatus (15 feet max height) and a
drive-thru lane accommodating uu to 10 queuindstacked cars. All required parking spaces,
landscaping and other applicable standards are complied with. The site’s zoning designation is
Commercial-Tourist with a Qualified Overlav Zone (CT-O Zone) and the General Plan
designation is TravelRecreation Commercial (T/R). The uroposed conditional use permit is to
allow the operation of the drive-thru component of the proposal; the site development plan is
required by the Q overlay designation. The project site is existing and already developed with a
nursery; the site will be redeveloped with the proposed Carls Jr./Green Burrito restauranddrive-
thru. No environmental impacts are anticipated from auproval of this SDP/CUP reauest and the
operation of a drive-thru Carl’s Jr./Green Burrito restaurant at the subiect proiect site.
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.
0 Land Use and Planning TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
[7 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
[7 Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
Water Hazards Cultural Resources
B Air Quality [I3 Noise Recreation 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
10 DETERMINATION. 0
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
[XI I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 .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.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, 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. An EIR is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
0' 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 EIR pursuant 'to
applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
& m,,, +-/? 6
Planner Signature 2 Date
I I/ S/.ib
Planning Directox Signddre Date I --
2 Rev. 03/28/96
{I) a
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.
e 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.
e “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.
e “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.
e “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
e Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but &I 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).
e 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.
e 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.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
e 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.
0 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 I1 analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
0' 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s):
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 community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
0
17
0 0
0
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
b) InducZ substantial growth in an area either directly or
population projections?
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area 0
or extension of major infrastructure)?
housing? 0 c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
111. 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?
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
g) Subsidence of the land?
h) Expansive soils?
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
o 0 0 0 0
0 0
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
0
0.
0 0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 17 o 0 0
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body?
0
0
0
0
5
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
0
0
cl 0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0
N 0
Impact
[XI
[x1
€3
[XI
[XI
w
[XI
[x1
(XI IXI
[XI
[x1
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI
(XI
0 0 [XI
0 17 [XI
0 0 (XI
0 0 [XI
Rev. 03/28/96
0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements?
f) 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?
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?
0
0
0 0 0
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
d) Create objectionable odors?
existing or projected air quality violation? (Source #1) [xi
0
0
any change in climate? 0
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Source
#1) IXI
b) Hazards to safety from design features (eg sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses 0
(e.g. farm equipment)?
- Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0 0 0
0
0 0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significan
t impact
0
0 0 0
0
0 cl
0
0
0
No
Impact
w w
[XI w !XI
o w
[XI
[XI
0 w
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
f) Conflicts with adopted. policies supporting alternative
[xi 0 0 0 [xi 0 0 cl El
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 0 cl 0 [xi
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not lilmited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds?
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
0 0 0 El
0 0 0 IXI
0 0 0 [xi 0 0 0 [xi
0 0 (XI 0 0 0 [xi
6 Rev. 03/28/96
s a
Issues (and Supporting Informxtion Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
proposal? o
inefficient manner? 0
resource that would be of future value to the region and 0
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 sources of potential
health hazards?
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees?
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services?
o 0 0 0 0
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?
b) Communications systems?
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
e) Storm water drainage?
0
0 n
facilities? 0
f) Solid waste disposal?
g) Local or regional water supplies?
U 0 0
7
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 cl
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
Less Than No
Significan Impact
t Impact
0 w o [XI
0 [XI
0 Ixi
0 w
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 IXI
o w cl w
0 0 0 0 0
[XI IE3 w !XI !XI
cl w 0 IXI 0 Ixi
0 Ixl cl w cl w 0 [XI
Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
lmpact
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect?
c) Create light or glare?
0 0 0
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
c) Affect historical resources?
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
0 0 0 0 would affect unique ethic cultural values?
potential impact area? 0
XV. RECREATIONAL. Woulcl the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
o
0
XVI. MANDATORY FINDKNGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“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?
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than No
Significan Impact t Impact
0 [x1 0 IXI w
0 cl 0 0
0
w w
[XI
[x1 w
0 [x1
0 [x1
0 [x1
o [XI
0 [x1
8 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES .
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review. N/A
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identifj 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. N/A
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project. N/A
9 Rev. 03/28/96
6 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. LAND USE PLANNING:
The project site currently accommodates a nursery, a parking area and landscaping. The
proposal to develop a combination Carl’s Jr./Green Burrito drive-thru restaurant at this site will
not create conflicts with existing land use designations, the provisions of the Mello I1 Local
Coastal Program, or the City’s General Plan. The City’s Zoning Ordinance allows the drive-thru
restaurants via a conditional use permit in commercial zones.
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING:
This site is proposed for the operation of a drive-thru restaurant which will not create any
significant impacts to population fluctuations or housing demandshssues in the City or the
region.
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS:
No geologic, seismic or topographic features or hazards are associated with this topographically
flat, developed urban project site.
IV. WATER:
No impacts to water supplies, ground water resources, or surface run-off characteristics will
result fi-om the proposed project. Engineering Department conditions on the project will ensure
compliance with all applicable drainage and urban pollutant run-off controls and regulations.
V. AIR QUALITY:
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 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 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 the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative 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.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
0’ a
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 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 subsequent
projects covered by the Greneral Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no
Mer environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
VI. 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 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 recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures
to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop
alternative 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 irnpacts 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 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.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RIESOURCES:
No biological resources are associated with this developed, urban site.
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES:
No impacts to energy or mineral resources are involved with the proposed car storage use of this
existing site.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
e e
IX. HAZARDS:
No abnormal or significant hazards are associated with the site or the proposed development for
the site.
X. NOISE:
The proposed use will not generate excessive noise.
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES:
This project will not create extraordinary demands on public services or facilities.
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS:
This project will not create the need for new or modified sewer systems, gas lines, storm water
drainage or solid waster disposal systems.
XIII. AESTHETICS:
The building design and associated landscaping is designed to compliment the developing
frontages along Palomar Airport Road and the potentially scenic highway qualities it retains.
Final landscape plan details will incorporate a focused screening effort for the parking lot areas
and drive-thru lane.
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES:
No cultural resources are associated with this existing, developed urban site.
XV. RECREATION:
No recreational resources or opportunities are involved or required with this site or project;
however, a playground apparatus is proposed for the children of customers eating at the
restaurant.
- -, -
i,
12 Rev. 03/28/96