Loading...
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