HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-06-21; Planning Commission; Resolution 47801
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
/- r,
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4780
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW A
RESTAURANT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF
PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND ARMADA DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5.
CASE NAME: OSCAR’S CARLSBAD
CASE NO.: SDP 90-05(F)/CUP 99-28/CDP 99-55
WHEREAS, S & C Company, Inc., “Developer,” has filed a verified application
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Pricesmart, Inc., “Owner,” described as
Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 17542, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, June 27,1995
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of June, 2000 and on
the 21st day of June, 2000, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider
said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration
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
r‘
according to Exhibit “ND” dated April 24,2000, and “PII” dated April 24,2000,
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findinm:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A.
B.
C.
D.
It has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration OSCAR’S
CARLSBAD - SDP 90-05(F’)/CUP 99-28/CDP 99-55, the environmental impacts
therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
The Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
Based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st day of June, 2000, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Heineman, L’Heureux,
Nielsen, Segall, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Baker
ABSTAIN:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOBMILk%R
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4780
%ity of
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: APN 211-040-34
Parcel 1 Parcel Map No 17542, City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, June 27,1995.
Project Description: Request for approval of a Site Development Plan amendment,
Conditional Use Permit, and Coastal Development Permit to allow
finish grading and construction of a 5,250 square foot restaurant
with an 1,800 square foot outdoor dining area on a vacant 1.75 acre
in-fill lot located on the southwest comer of the intersection of
Palomar Airport Road and Armada Drive.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the
initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1)
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City
that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a
Negative Declaration 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, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Barbara Kennedy in the Planning Department
at (760) 602-4626.
DATED: APRIL 24,200O
CASE NO: SDP 90-05(F)/CUP 99-28/CDP 99-55
CASE NAME: OSCAR’S CARLSBAD
PUBLISH DATE: APRIL 24,200O
MICHAEL J. HOk&lILkl?R
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 l (760) 602-4600 l FAX (760) 602-8559 @
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
CASE NO: SDP 90-OXF)/CUP 99-28/CDP 99-55 DATE: Atxil24,2000
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: OSCAR’S CARLSBAD
2. APPLICANT: S & C Comuanv
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 9823 Pacific Heights. Suite J San
Diego. CA 92121 619-552-4920
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: November 2.1999
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reauest for aunroval of a site develonment plan amendment,
conditional use permit. and coastal develonment uermit to allow finish grading and construction
of a 5.250 sauare foot restaurant with an 1,800 sauare foot outdoor dining area on a vacant 1.75
acre in-fill lot located on the southwest comer of the intersection of Palomar Airoort Road and
Armada Drive. (APN 21 l-040-34)
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.
izl Land Use and Planning El Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing cl Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
El Geological Problems El Energy & Mineral Resources El Aesthetics
0 Water q Hazards El Cultural Resources
q Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
q Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
r- 1
DETERMINATION.
III
0
0
lxl
cl
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have 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. A Negative
Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Master Environmental
Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Impact 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.
q &la0 Date
Date
2 Rev. 03128196
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.
0 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.
l “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.
l “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.
l “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
l Based on an “E&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).
l 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.
l 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
l 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.
l 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 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. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
c)
4
e)
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18; #2, pg 7)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18; #2, pg 7)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18; #2, pg 7)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18;#2, pg 8)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6 ;#2, pg 8)
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-l -
5.5-6;#2, pg 8)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6;#2, pg 8)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
a) b) c>
4
d
0
.d h) 9
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Faultruptnre? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15) ;#2, pg 6)
Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-5)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l :Pgs
5.1-l - 5.1.15 ;#2, pg 6)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l -
5.1-15 ;#2, pg 6)
Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15 ;#2, pg
6) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1-15 ;#2, pg 6)
Subsidence ofthe land?(#I:Pgs 5.1-I - 5.1-15;#2, pg 6)
Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15 ;#2, pg 6)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#l :Pgs 5. l-l -
5.1-15 ;#2, pg 6)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-
11 ;#2, pg 6) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11 ;#2, pg 6)
Potentially Significant
Impact
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Ix]
lzl
IXI
El
Ix]
lxl
lxl
Ia
Ix]
Ix1
lxl
lxl
El
El
lxl
El
Ix]
1x1
Ix]
Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
4
g>
h)
9
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11 ;#2, pg 6)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11 ; #2, pg 6)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11; #2, pg 6)
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-l - 5..2-11; #2, pg 6)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11; #2, pg 6)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
ll;%pg6) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.2-l - 5..2-11; #2, pg 6)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
b)
4
4
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
1 - 5.3-12; #2, pg 6)
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l :Pgs 5.3- 1
- 5.3-12)
Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12; #2, pg
6) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12; #2,
pg 6)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
4
b)
c>
4
4
f)
g)
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-l - 5.7.22; #2, pgs 8,9; #3 pg 8)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22; #2, pgs
85’) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22; #2, pgs 8,s)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22; #2, pgs 8,9)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22; #2, pgs 8,9)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22; #2, pgs 8,9)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l -
5.7.22; #2, pgs 8,9)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
III
III
0
cl
Potentially Significant
Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
17
Less Than Significant
Impact
q
0
0
0
No Impact
!xl
lxl
El
El
IXI
IXI
lxl
0
Ix]
Ix]
El
0
Ix]
IXI
lxl
lxl
lzl
lxl
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
6 Rev. 03/28/96
-.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b)
cl
4
9
VIII.
a>
b)
cl
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24; #2, pg 7)
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24; #2, pg 7)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l :Pgs 5.4- 1 - 5.4-24; #2,
Pg 7) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24; #2, pg 7)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l
- 5.4-24; #2, pg 7)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9; #2, pg 7)
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, pg 7)
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5
& 5.13-1 - 5.13-9; #2, pg 7)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
4
b)
cl
4
e)
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-l - 5.10.1-5;
4% pg 8) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l :Pgs 5.10. l-l -
5.10.1-5; #2, pg 9)
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5; #2, pg 8)
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
healthhazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5; #2, pg 8)
Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5; #2, pg 8)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-l - 5.9-
15; #2, pg 8) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
1 - 5.9-15; #2, pg 8)
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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6; #2, pg 7)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4; #2, pg7)
c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5; #2, pg 7)
Potentially Significant Impact
0
0
0
El
0
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
0
7
No Impact Less Than Significant
Impact
0
0
q
0
0
Rev. 03128196
lxl
lzl
lxl
El
lxl
lxl
lxl
lzl
IXI
Ix1
lxl
lxl
lxl
Ia
txl
lzl
IXI
lzl
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d>
d
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (#l,
pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7; #2, pg 7)
Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
5.12.8-7; #2, pg 7)
XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
a)
b)
4
4
4
f)
g)
XIII.
4
b)
4
XIV.
a>
b>
cl
4
4
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1 - 5.13-9; #2, pg 7)
Communications systems? (#l: pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7;
#2> Pg 7) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7; #2, pg 8)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7; #2,
pg 8) Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8; #2, pg 8)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3; #2,
r-x 8) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.3-7; #2, pg 8)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.11-l - 5.11-5)
Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l :Pgs
5.11-1 - 5.1 l-5)
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 l-l - 5.1 l-5)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10; +Q, Pg 7) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10; #2, Pg 7) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10; #2,
Pg 7) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
5.8-l - 5.8-10; #2, pg 7)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10; #2, pg 7)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
4
b)
XVI.
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
5.12.8-7; #2, pg 9)
Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l :Pgs
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7; #2, pg 9)
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Potentially Significant
Impact
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
Less Than Significant
Impact
No [mpact
lxl
lxl
IXI
lxl
Ix1
lxl
Ix]
lxl
IXI
lxl
Ix]
El
lxl
El
lxl
El
lxl
Ix]
lrxl
8 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
a)
b)
c>
XVII.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“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)?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
EARLIER ANALYSES.
Potentially
Significant Impact
a
q
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0
q
III
Less Than No Significant Impact
Impact
0 lxl
III lxl
0 lxl
Earlier analysis has been conducted on two occasions. First, the General Plan Update (GPA 94-
01) and related Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR 93-01) reviewed the potential
impacts of buildout of the City’s General Plan, including transportation and air quality impacts.
Secondly, the Conditional Negative Declaration dated February 28, 1991 reviewed the potential
development impacts on the original Price Club project which included the subject property.
Since the project involves the construction of a restaurant on an existing pre-graded pad, the
potential impacts in the area of land use and planning, population and housing, regional and local
transportation and circulation, biological resources, energy and mineral resources, hazards, public services, utilities and service systems; cultural resources have already been discussed and
addressed in the Master Environmental Impact Report. Therefore, with regard to these potential
impacts, there will be no additional significant effects due to this development that were not
adequately analyzed in the MEIR and no new or additional mitigation measures or alternatives
are required. All feasible mitigation measures identified in the previous MEIR which are
appropriate to this project have been incorporated into the project.
The potential visual aesthetic impacts of the restaurant were not fully addressed in the previous
environmental reviews, therefore, these potential impacts are analyzed in this environmental review. In addition, the original approval analyzed the site as a potential 5,000 square foot retail
site. The current proposal for a restaurant creates additional traffic impacts and parking
requirements that were not analyzed under the previous Conditional Negative Declaration.
Therefore, a subsequent Negative Declaration is proposed.
Rev. 03128196
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site is‘ a 1.75 acre in-fill lot designated R (Regional Commercial) by the General
Plan. The property was rough graded in conjunction with the development of the Price Club
(Costco) site in 1992. The central and west side of the existing pad is generally flat. The
surrounding slopes on the south and east sides do not exceed 5 feet in height and are currently
landscaped. The north side of the site slopes upward about 10 feet to Palomar Airport Road and
is also heavily landscaped. There are 70 existing paved parking spaces on the west end of the
parcel.
The north side of the site is adjacent to Palomar Airport Road and the entrance driveway to
Costco (at Armada Drive) is located along the eastern edge of the site. The Costco gas station is
located across a primary drive aisle to the south and the Costco parking lot, with 742 parking
spaces, is located west/southwest of the pad. The Costco building is located about 500 feet
southwest of the subject property.
The development proposal would result in the construction of a 5,250 square foot restaurant,
1,800 square foot covered outdoor eating area, and the installation of 19 additional parking
spaces. The proposed 79.2 finish floor elevation is within 1 foot of the rough graded pad which
is at about the 80 foot contour. Finish grading for the pad will result in the export of
approximately 1,100 cubic yards of soil.
I. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
I. Land Use and Planning
The site’s C-2-Q (Commercial-Qualified Development Overlay) zone designation would allow a
restaurant use with approval of a Site Development Plan amendment. In addition, due to the
sites inclusion in the Commercial/Visitor-Serving Overlay Zone, approval of a Conditional Use
Permit will be required. The project will also require approval of a Coastal Development Permit
due to its location within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program, and will be subject
to a condition of approval restricting winter grading.
V. Air Quality
In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR which analyzed the impacts which will result
from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludes that
continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have
cumulative significant impacts in the form of 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 build-out
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 build-out, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
10 Rev. 03128196
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.
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 projects covered
by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MER This
document is available at the Planning Department.
VI. Transportation/Circulation
In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would
result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded
that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will result in
increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-out
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 build-out.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out,
numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include:
1) 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 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 build-out 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 projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR.
This project is within the scope of that MEIR This document is available at the Planning
Department.
The property is subject to a reciprocal parking and access agreement with the Costco site. The
proposal has been analyzed to determine if there is adequate parking for both uses on the site. A
11 Rev. 03128196
total of 513 parking spaces are required for the Costco development and 742 parking spaces are
provided on the Costco site, resulting in an excess parking supply of 229 spaces. The proposed
restaurant will require 103 spaces and 89 spaces will be located on the site. Therefore, the
applicant’s request to utilize 14 spaces from the Costco lot will not adversely impact the required
number of parking spaces for the Costco site.
A traffic study was submitted for the development proposal which indicates that the restaurant
would generate approximately 1,195 ADT. The original Price Club development anticipated a
5,000 square foot retail building on this site that would generate 200 ADT. The study indicates
that the intersections which were analyzed currently operate at LOS C or better with the
exception of Palomar Airport Road/I-5 Northbound which operates at LOS D. Buildout and
buildout plus project projections indicate that the Palomar Airport Road/Armada Drive
intersection will operate at LOS D. The proposed project will add a minimal amount of traffic to
this location in the PM peak hour (96 ADT). The increase in vehicle trips has been analyzed and
based on City traffic studies and the proposed Palomar Airport Corridor Improvements, no
additional mitigation is required. The Engineering Department has required that a condition be
included which would restrict the hours of operation of the restaurant to exclude the period from
6:00 am - 9:00 am. This restriction is an effort to reduce congestion on Palomar Airport Road.
If approved, the condition may be modified at a later date as an administrative amendment based
on a traffic report acceptable to the City Engineer. The report must include findings that levels of
service would not be reduced to an unacceptable standard.
VIII. Aesthetics
The proposed building will be partially hidden from Palomar Airport Road since the building pad
is about 10 feet below the street level. The highest point of the architectural tower elements will
be about 25 feet above Palomar Airport Road and the top of the roof parapet will be about 15 feet
above the road. The primary aesthetic concerns are in regard to any negative visual impacts of
exposed roof equipment or utility areas. The proposed building exhibits a contemporary southwest architectural style and is compatible with the architectural styles permitted in the
Commercial/Visitor-Serving Overlay. The building has been designed with an equal amount of
architectural detailing on all four sides. The roof equipment will be screened from view by the
building parapet and an architecturally compatible screen wall around the roof equipment.
Views of trash and utility areas have also been screened from view. Therefore, no significant
negative visual impacts will result from the proposed project.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
,-
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 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008,
(760) 602-4600.
1. Final Master Environmental Imnact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-Ol), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. Conditional Negative Declaration for the Price Club (GPA 90-l/ZC 90-l/SDP 90-5/CUP 90-
3/HDP 90-9&B 837), dated February 28,1991, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
3. Traffic Imnact Analvsis for Oscar’s in the Citv of Carlsbad, dated September 1999,
O’Rourke Engineering.
13 Rev. 03/28/96