The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRP 94-07; Carlsbad Brewery & Public House; Redevelopment Permits (RP)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - FAkX n (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. RP 94-07/CDP 94-08 DATE: Januarv 23. 1995 BACKGROUND 1. CASENAME: CARLSBAD BREWERY AND PUBLIC HOUSE 2. APPLICANT: BRETT REDMAYNE - TITLEY 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 4. DATE EL\ FORM PART I SUBMITTED: NOVEMBER 9. 1994 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: USE CHANGE IN EXISTING 4.512 SOUARE FOOT BUILDING FROM RETAIL TO RESTAURANT. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTL\LLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a Totentially Significant Impact", or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning Population and Housing Geological Problems Water X Air Quality X Transportation/Circulation Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Hazards Noise Mandatory Rndings of Significance Public Services Utilities and Service Systems Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation I-l DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION wiU be prepared. • I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a sigmficant 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 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, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/MITIGATE 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 EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR / MFTIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared. 0 Planner Signarure Date Planning Director ^l^turft Date ' 1-2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 reqmres tiiat tiie City conduct an Enviromnental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the foUowing 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 Repoit (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 mformation 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 TTian 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-Pait II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but aU 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, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). 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. If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce unpacts 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. 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. 1-3 • 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 n 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. 1-4 Issues (and Siqjporting Infonnatioii Sources): Potentially Signincant Impact Potentially Sigmficant Unless Mitigatim Incoqporated Less Than Sigmficant Impact No In^nct I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would tiie proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): ) b) Conflict with applicable envuronmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicmity? ( ) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? ( ) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? ( ) n. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would tiie proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectiy (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) 1-5 Issues (and Siqipocting Infonnatioa Sources): Potentially SigniHcant In^»ct Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact m, GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would tiie proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) b) Seisniic ground shaking? ( ) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? { ) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( ) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) h) Expansive soils? ( ) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) X JL JL JL X_ X IV. WATER. Would tiie proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) 1-6 Issues (and Si^orting Infonnation Sources): c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ( ) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) f) Change in the quantity of groimd waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) g) Altered du-ection or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Sigmficant haptct No Impact X JL X V. AIR QUALITY. Would tiie proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) X. X 1-7 Issues (and Si^orting Information Sources): Potentially Sigmficant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigatioi Incorporated Less Than Sigmficant Impact No Impact VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? ( ) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) 0 Conflicts with adopted policies supporting altemative transportation (e.g. bus tumouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts? ( ) vn. 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? ( ) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? ( ) 1-8 Issues (and Sui^oiting Information Sources): c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( ) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vemal pool)? ( ) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Sigmficant Impact No Impact vra. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) X DC. HAZARDS. Would tiie proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation? ( ) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) 1-9 Issues (and Si^jporting Information Sources): e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable bmsh, grass, or trees? ( ) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigaticm Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X. NOISE. Would tiie proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would tiie proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemment services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) b) Police protection? ( ) c) Schools? ( ) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? { ) e) Other govemmental services? ( ) X_ JL JL JL X xn. UTn^rriES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would tiie proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ) b) Conununications systems? ( ) X. X I - 10 Issues (and Shipporting Information Sources): c) Local or regional water treatment or ) distribution facilities? ( d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( e) Storm water drainage? ( f) Solid waste disposal? ( Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigaticn Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) No Impact JL JL JL JL X xra. AESTHETICS, would tiie proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) c) Create light or glare? ( ) JL X XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would tiie proposal: a) Disturb paieontological resources? ( ) b) Distiu-b archaeological resources? ( ) c) Affect historical resources? ( ) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) JL JL X I-11 Issues (and Siqpporting Information Sources): Potentially Signiflcant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitiption Incorporated Less Than Sigmficant No Impact Impact XV. RECREATION. Would tiie proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( JL X XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNfflCANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wild life species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Califomia history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in coimection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable ftiture projects) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directiy or indirectly? 1-12 XVn. 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 analyzc^d in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 1-13 DISCUSSION OF ENVmONMENTAL EVALUATION AIR OUALITY: 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. Smce 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 altemative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efflcient 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 Fmal Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts. TTiis "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. TTiis document is available at the Planning Department. CmCULATION: 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 Cit/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 altemative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional ckculation strategies when adopted. TTie diversion of regional through-traffic from a failmg Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdicticm 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. I - 14 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 'Totentially 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. RP 94-07/CDP 94-08 is a request for a use change from retail to restaurant. The project site is locally known as the Wonder Bread building. It was constructed in 1932 as an automobile dealership and converted to retail/wholesale bakery outlet to include delivery truck parking in the rear. The project proposes to covert the building with minimal cosmetic changes to use as a restaurant with attendant micro brewery. The project was reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission which supportsthe proposed improvements. Parking is to be provided on site and within 300 feet of the propeity, which is in accord with the requirements of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The restaurant use is consistent with both the General Plan and the Village Design Manual which serves asboth the Zoning and Coastal Program for the area. Project specific traffic may increase beyond the past use. This is difficult to quantify as the tmck delivery traffic from the site exceeded normal traffic generation rates from the existing use. Nonetheless the impact does not exceed adopted general standards for the traffic capacity of the street serving the project, therefore the impact has been determined to be less than significant 1-15 LIST MITIGATING MEASURES OF APPLICABLE) ATTACH MITIGATTON MONITORING PROGRAM OF APPLICABLE) 1-16 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature 1-17