HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-12-19; Planning Commission; Resolution 51001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5100
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO
CONSTRUCT A RESTAURANT. ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF PASEO DEL NORTE,
NORTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND SOUTH OF
CAR COUNTRY DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 3
CASE NAME: KING’S FISH HOUSE
CASE NO.: CUP Ol-06KDP Ol-18/SDP 80-l l(D)
WHEREAS, Ring’s Seafood Company, “Developer,” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Carpenter’s Pension Trust
for Southern California, a California Corporation, “Owner,” described as
a portion of Parcel 2 of parcel map no. 11284, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to map thereof, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of
San Diego County, May l&l981 and a portion of Parcel 4 of
Carlsbad Tract No 92-07, in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof no.
13078, filed in the Offrce of the County Recorder of San Diego
County, December 28,1993
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 19th day of December, 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:
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
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration
according to Exhibit “ND” dated July 24, 2001, and “PII” dated July 18, 2001,
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Flndines:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A. It has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration and the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
B. 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
C. It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
D. Based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
PC RESO NO. 5100 -2-
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of December 2001, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Dominguez,
Heineman, Nielsen, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
M~L~EL J. I%&MILL%R
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 5100 -3-
City of Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: West side of Paseo De1 Norte, north of Palomar Airport Rd., south
of Car Country Drive and adjacent and east of Interstate 5.
Project Description: The project consists of constructing a 9052 square foot restaurant
with 139 surface parking spaces on two acres. Project also includes the reconfiguration of the Holiday Inn northern parking
lot, street vacation (cul-de-sac bulb) of Anderson Way,
construction of a water retention basin for water quality purposes
and an adjustment plat.
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, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Van Lynch in the Planning Department at
(760) 602-4613.
DATED: JULY 24,200l
CASE NO: CUP Ol-06KDP Ol-18/SDP 80-l l(D)
CASE NAME: RING’S FISH HOUSE
PUBLISH DATE: JULY 24,200l
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 l (760) 602-4600 l FAX (760) 602-8559 l www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
CASE NO: CUP Ol-06/CDP Ol-18/ SDP 80-l l(D) DATE: July 18.2001
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: KING’S FISH HOUSE
2. APPLICANT: Gary Maveda
3. ADDRESSES AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 100 West Broadway, Suite 550, Long
Beach, CA 90802
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: May 3,200l
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of a 9052 scmare foot restaurant with 139 surface
parking spaces on two acres located on the west side of Paseo De1 Norte, north of Palomar Airport Rd., south of Car Country Drive and adiacent and east of Interstate 5. Proiect also
includes the reconfiguration of the Holiday Inn northern parking: lot, street vacation (cul-de-sac
bulb) of Anderson way, construction of a water retention basin and an adjustment plat.
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 lxl Transportation/Circulation q Public Services
El Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
Cl Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
q Air Quality 0 Noise q Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
lIzI
0
cl
El
0
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. An EIR 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 voided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-Ol),
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
Planning DirectorkkignatCtsk Date I
2 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 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 II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but &l 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 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 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 ElR 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. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a)
b)
c>
4
4
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #I:Pgs 5.6-I - 5.6-18)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
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)
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)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
4
b)
cl
Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
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)
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
4
b)
cl
4
4
f)
9)
h)
9
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, # 2)
Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, # 2)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l :Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1.15, # 2)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15, # 2)
Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-l - 5.1-15, # 2)
Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15, # 2)
Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, I# 2)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#l :Pgs 5. l-l -
5.1-15, # 2)
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) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l 1)
c) 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-l 1, # 3)
Potentially Significant
Impact
q
q
q
0
q
q
q
q
q q q
q
q q
0 q q
q
q
q
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q q
q
q q
0 q q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q q
0
q q
0 q q
q
q
q
El
lxl
lxl
!xl
lxl
Ix1
Ia
lzl
Ix]
lxl
El
lxl
Ix]
Ix]
Ix1
Ix]
Ix1
la
IXI
lxl
Rev. 03128196
Less Than Significant
Impact
No
Impact
5
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
g)
h>
9
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-11)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-11)
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-l 1)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-11)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-
11) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.2-l - 5.2-l 1)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
4
b)
c)
d)
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
1 - 5.3-12)
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l
- 5.3-12)
Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
a)
b)
4
4
e)
0
g>
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-l - 5.7-22)
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)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l -
5.7-22)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the 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)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
6
Potentially
Significant Impact
cl
q
q
0
0
cl
lxl
0
0
q
lxl
q
q
0
0
q
0
q
0
q
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
q
Less Than Significant
Impact
No Impact
Rev. 03128196
lxl
El
lxl
ta
IXI
El
0
IXI
lxl
Ix1
0
lxl
lxl
lxl
IXJ
IXI
Kl
lzl
lxl
lxl
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
4
d
VIII.
4
b)
cl
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l
- 5.4-24)
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)
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)
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-l - 5.13-9)
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-l - 5.10.1-5)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l -
5.10.1-5)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-l - 5.9-
15) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
1 - 5.9-15)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
4
‘4
c)
4
4
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4)
Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
5.12.8-7)
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)
Potentially Significant Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
0
q
q
q
q
q
q q q q
q
q
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated q
q
q
0
q
q
0
q
q
q
q
q
q q q q
q
q
No
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact
q
q
Rev. 03128196
q
q
q
q
III
q
q
q
q
q
q q q q
q
q
lxl
IXI
lxl
lxl
lxl
Ix]
lxl
Ix]
(x1
lxl
lzl
lxl
1xI
lzl
lxl
lxl
lxl
Ix1
7
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b)
cl
4
4
r)
8)
XIII.
a>
b)
4
XIV.
a)
b)
4
4
d
Communications systems? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.3-7)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
Have or demonstrate a negative aesthetic effect?
(#l:Pgs 5.11-l - 5.11-5)
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 I- 1 - 5.11-5)
CULTUR4L RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
5.8-l - 5.8-10)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
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)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS 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?
Potentially
Significant Impact
q q
q q q q
q
q
q
q
q
q q
q
q
q
q
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated q q
0 q q q
q
q
q
q
q
q q
q
q
q
q
Less Than
Significant Impact
q q
0 q q q
q
q
q
q
q
q q
q
q
q
q
No
Impact
lxl
lxl
lxl
lzl
El
lxl
lzl
Ix1
(XI
lxl
lxl
lxl
El
lxl
lxl
Ix]
Ix1
8 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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 Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation Incorporated q q q El
q q cl El
9 Rev. 03/28/96
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)@). 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.
Cl 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.
10 Rev. 03128196
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project consists of constructing a 9052 square foot restaurant with 139 surface parking
spaces on two acres located the west side of Paseo De1 Norte, north of Palomar Airport Rd.,
south of Car Country Drive and adjacent and east of Interstate 5. Project also includes the
reconfiguration of the Holiday Inn northern parking lot, street vacation (cul-de-sac bulb) of
Anderson way, construction of a water retention basin for water quality purposes and an
adjustment plat. Access to the site will be provided via a driveway from Paseo De1 Norte and
interconnecting driveways with the existing development to the south and future development to
the north.
The project site is relatively flat and has been previously graded and developed with the previous
alignment of Paseo De1 Norte, which has since been realigned to the eastern side of the property.
All previous roadway surface improvements have been removed. The southerly portion of the
site is developed with a publicly dedicated cul-de-sac bulb and an overflow parking area for the
adjacent Holiday Inn. Improvements consist of asphalt paving, concrete curbs and drainage and
utility improvements. The site has adequate access to a public street and the cul-de-sac bulb is
not needed. The site is vegetated with grasses, forbs and a few ornamental trees. The site does
not contain any known sensitive habitat or species. No environmentally sensitive resources exist
on the previously graded site and all public facilities necessary to serve the development are
already in place. No significant adverse impacts to the environment are anticipated.
11 Rev. 03128196
II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
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.
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 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.
Transportation/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
12 Rev. 03128196
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 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.
A MEIR may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the
filing of an application for a later project. The City is currently reviewing the 1994 MEIR to
determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects. Although the MEIR was
certified more than five years ago, the City’s preliminary review of its adequacy finds that no
substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was
certified. The only potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure at Palomar Airport
Rd. and El Camino Real, is in the process of being mitigated to below a level of significance.
Additionally, there is no new available information, which was not known and could not have
been known at the time the MEIR was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to
review later projects.
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 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008,
(760) 602-4600.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-Ol), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. Geotechnical Investigation, King’s Fish House and Lounge, Paseo De1 Norte, Carlsbad,
CA prepared by Testing Engineers - San Diego, Inc, dated July lo,2001
3. Preliminarv Hvdrolo~ and Hydraulic Report for King’s Seafood Co. prepared by
Aquaterra Engineering Inc. dated July 5,200l.
13 Rev. 03128196
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES
None
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
None
Rev. 03128196