HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 94-07; Carlsbad Brewery & Public House; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (4)INSTRUCTION SHEET FOR FILLING OUT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I
This Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Form - Part I will be used to
determine what type of environmental documentation (i.e. Environmental Impact
Report, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Negative Declaration or Exemption) will
be required to be prepared for your application, per the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and Title 19 of Carlsbad's Municipal Code. The clarity and
accuracy of the information you provide is critical for purposes of quickly
determining the specific environmental effects of your project.
Recent judicial decisions have held that a "nalced checlclist", that is a checklist
that is merely checked "yes" or "no", is insufficient to comply with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Each "yes" or "no"
answer must be accompanied by a written explanation justifying the "yes" or "no"
answer. This is especially important when a Negative Declaration is being
sought. The more information provided in this form, the easier and quicker it
will be for staff to complete the Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Part
II.
RECEIVED
NOV 0 9 1994
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPT.
CASE NO
DATE:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I
(To be Completed by APPLICANT)
Applicant: Tha carlsbad Brewery &. Public House
Address of Applicant: 571 Carlsbad village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92003
Phone Number: ( 61 9) 434-421 2
Name, address and phone number of person to be contacted (if other than Applicant): Brett Redmayne-Titley 1002 S. Tait St. Oceanside, CA 92054
GENERAL INFORMATION: (Please be specific)
Project Description: Renovate building a prepare for ooeration as
a Micro-Brewary and Restaurant.
Project Location/Address: 571 Carlsbad village Drive Carlsbad 92008
Assessor Parcel Number: 2Q3-3as (Q2)-(12)
General Plan/Zone of Subject Property: Z
Local Facilities Management Zone:
Is the site within Carlsbad's Coastal Zone?
Please describe the area surrounding the site to the
North: Retail Shops East: Bank - Retail Shops & Parking lot
South: Retail Shops West: Retail Shops & Parking Lot
List all other applicable permits & approvals related to this project:
City Redevelopment Permit S Building Permit
(Please be Specific. Attach Additional Pages or Exhibits, if necessarv)
1. Please describe the project site, including distinguishing natural and
manmade characteristics. Also provide precise slope analysis when a slope
of 15' or higher and 15% grade or greater is present on the site.
2. Please describe energy conservation measures incorporated into the design
and/or operation of the project.
3. PLEASE AHACH A PROJECT SUMMARY SHEET WHICH SHOWS THE FOLLOWING:
a. If a residential project identify the number of units, type of units,
schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of
household size expected, average daily traffic generation (latest SANDAG
rates).
b. If a commercial project, indicate the exact type, activity(ies),
square footage of sales area, average daily traffic generation
(latest SANDAG rates), parking provided, and loading facilities.
see ailcM-U^^ 0(iio4
c. If an industrial project, indicate the exact type or industry(ies),
average daily traffic generation (latest SANDAG rates), estimated
employment per shift, time of shifts, and loading facilities.
d. If an institutional project, indicate the major project/site
function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy,
loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the
project.
I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Please Answer each of the following questions by placing a check in the
appropriate space. Then, fully discuss and explain why each item was
checked yes or no. Provide supporting data if applicable. Attach
additional sheets as necessary.
YES NO
1) Could the project significantly impact or change
present or future land uses in the vicinity of the
activity? xxx
EXPLANATION: Since we are renovating an
existing structura in an existing downtown
redevelopment zone there is no impact.
2) Could the activity affect the use of a recreational
area, or area of aesthetic value? xxx
EXPLANATION: No, since tha project is in the
downtown dedevelopment zone.
:xx
3) Could the activity affect the functioning of an
established community or neighborhood?
EXPLANATION: No, since a restaurant is
considered catagorically eligible in this
radavalopmant zona.
4) Could the activity result in the displacement of
community residents? xxx
EXPLANATION: since the projaet uses
only existing building and site.
YES NO
5) Could the activity increase the number of low and
moderate cost housing units in the city? xxx
EXPLANATION: UO^ Wa ara not an araa hh;^t
has onlv residential units.
6) Could the activity significantly affect existing
housing or create a demand for additional housing?
EXPLANATION: r^o, vie are in the business
araa of Carlsbad.
9) Could.the activity significantly affect the
potential use, extraction, or conservation of a
scarce natural resource?
EXPLANATION: No. Wa ara in an existing
radavalopmant zona.
A /\. A
7) Are any of the natural or man-made features in the
activity area unique, that is, not found in other
parts of the county, state or nation? xxx
EXPLANATION: No. The sita and building are
'=;imilr7ir to many otherfs—in thQ acQa.
8) Could the activity significantly affect an
historical or archaeological site or its settings? '^^^
EXPLANATION: No. We are an axisting
radavalopmant zona.
xxx
YES NO
10) Could the activity significantly affect fish,
wildlife or plant resources? ____ xxx
EXPLANATION: No. Tha businass givasof
no contaiainants at all.
11) Are there any rare or endangered plant or animal
species in the activity area?
EXPLANATION: No. Thara are no plants or
animals on our sita.
EXPLANATION: No. Waa are in an existing
radalopment zone.
XXX
12) Could the activity change existing features of any
of the city's stream, lagoons, bays, tidelands
or beaches?
EXPLANATION: No. Wa ara in an existing
radavalopmant zona.
13) Could the activity result in the erosion or elimin-
ation of agricultural lands? -^^^
EXPLANATION: No. We are in an existing
radavelopment zone.
14) Could the activity serve to encourage development
of presently undeveloped areas or intensify develop-
ment of already developed areas? ^^^^
YES NO
15) Will the activity require a variance from estab-
lished environmental standards (air, water, noise,
etc.)? XX2L
EXPLANATION: ^n. Thp> hnc;inptc;c; p-roHnr-'ac;
no environmental contaminants.
16) Is the activity carried out as part of a larger
project or series of projects? ^'^^^
EXPLANATION: No. Thara will be no expansion
of this site.
17) Will the activity require certification, authoriza-
tion or issuance of a permit by any local, state
or federal environmental control agency? KXX_
EXPLANATION* existing
redevelopmant zona. ,
18) Will the activity require issuance of a variance or
conditional use permit by the City? xxx
EXPLANATION: No. Wa will apply for a
ntanrlarri rpiipvpl nnnrant ni?rmit. —
19) Will the activity involve the application, use, or
disposal of potentially hazardous materials?
EXPLANATION: '^^^ business produces no
contami nani-g; nr ha T-.a rrlnn.c; in.=i l-or-i 1 Q
xxx
YES NO
20) Will the activity involve construction of facilities
in a flood plain? xxx
EXPLANATION: No. Wa ara not in a flood plain.
21) Will the activity involve construction of facilities xxx
in the area of an active fault?
EXPLANATION:
No. Carlsbad has no fault line in tha
immediate araa.
22) Could the activity result in the generation of
significant amounts of dust? xxx
EXPLANATION: No. Tha businass generates
no dust.
23) Will the activity involve the burning of brush,
trees, or other materials? xx:
EXPLANATION: No. Wa will not ba burning
anything.
24) Could the activity result in a significant change
in the quality of any portion of the region's air
or water resources? (Should note surface, ground
water, off-shore.)
EXPLANATION: jsxa,,—ghQ businass r.^leasi?fii no contaminants
all •
YES NO
25) Will the project substantially increase fuel
consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.)? xxx
EXPLANATION: No. Our consumption will
ba similar to all othar ra<^i-anranh.<:; in
26) Will the activity involve construction of facilities
on a slope of 25 percent or greater? xxx
EXPLANATION: No. The sita has no grades^
over 2%.
27) Will there be a significant change to existing
land form?
(a) Indicate estimated grading to be done in
cubic yards: .
(b) Percentage of alteration to the present
land form: .
(c) Maximum height of cut or fill slopes:
EXPLANATION: No. We will usa axisting
grada throughout.
28) Will the activity result in substantial increases
in the use of utilities, sewers, drains or streets? xx:
EXPLANATION: No. Our usa wmll be similar to
all other restaurants in the araa.
YES NO
29) Will the project significantly increase wind or
water erosion of soils? xxx
EXPLANATION: No. Our project is within
an existing redevelopment zone.
30) Could the project significantly affect existing
fish or wildlife habitat? -^^^
EXPLANATION: No. Our project is in an
existing redavelopmant zone.
31) Will the project significantly produce new light
or glare? xxx
EXPLANATION: No. Only ligh.^ting of
exterior signage.
10
II. STATEMENT OF NON-SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
If you have answered yes to any of the questions in Section I but think
the activity will have no significant environmental effects, indicate your
reasons below:
III. COMMENTS OR ELABORATIONS TO ANY OF THE OUESTIONS IN SECTION I
(If additional space is needed for answering any questions, attach
additional sheets as needed.)
Signature
(Person Comple
Date Signed .
11
A,
(f?£^ <SU0i>K'ot^s 1,3, Sto.
Slie 41^^ jCVD|90^€ci Cowls Ibciol l^v^u>-eoc| auol l^bli(^ House
l^oos^v^cl'l'"^"^ »^ Caolslcy\o(, Cot. "TW l^dud^S. ac.
^:x\s4ii^ay^ s4ruc4uv/£- (\A^oi( ^^OO s><^. pr^^ vokicl^ we i^^^Hol
#
"T^e •5>i'Je uj(ll b<2. u.sec(
(^(AiMiU^ ^-ti^ bv^u>eat| Lofll 4^lce 0^ c^pjOvAoy "^OO^^H-y
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART H
(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 EIA FORM PART I SUBMIFTED: NOVEMBER 9. 1994
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: USE CHANGE IN EXISTING 4.512 SOUARE FOOT BUILDING FROM
RETAIL TO RESTAURANT.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of envhonmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a Totentially Significant Impact", or "Potentially Sigmficant 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 Findings of Significance
Public Services
Utilities and Service Systems
Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Recreation
I - 1
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 envu-omnent,
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 reqmred. •
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/MmGATE NEGATIVE DECLARATION is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. D
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 / MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared. 0
Planner Signature Date
Plannmg Director signaturi Date '
1-2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 reqmres that the City conduct an Envkonmental
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 infonnation 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 briefiy
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 sigmficant.
Based on an "EIA-Part 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 enviromnent.
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.
When "Potentially Sigmficant 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 cu-cumstances: (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 discussmg
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
1-4
Issues (and StQjpcrtiiig Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potraitially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would tiie proposal:
a) Confiict with general plan designation
or zoning? (Source #(s): )
b) Confiict with applicable environmental plans
or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? ( )
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? ( )
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations
(e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts
from incompatible land uses)? ( )
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement
of an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)? ( )
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 indirectly (e.g. through projects
in an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? ( )
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( )
X
1-5
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
Issues (and Siqpporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Inqnct
ni. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would tiie
proposal result in or expose people to potential
impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? ( )
b) Seismic gromid shaking? ( )
c) Seismic ground failure, including
liquefaction? ( )
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( )
e) Landslides or mudfiows? ( )
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? ( )
JL
X_
JL
JL
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 fiooding? ( )
1-6
Issues (and Siqporting Information 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 ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? ( )
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater? ( )
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( )
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groimdwater otherwise available for
public water supplies? ( )
Potentially
SigniHcant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
JL
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? ( )
) JL _
JL
X
1-7
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) JC_
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? ( )
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
altemative transportation (e.g. bus tumouts,
bicycle racks)? ( )
g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic
impacts? ( )
X
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 Siqpporting 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
In^Mct
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigati(Hi
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Vni. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? ( )
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient maimer? ( )
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? ( )
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited to:
oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation? ( )
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (
c) The creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard? ( )
d) Exposure of people to existing sources
of potential health hazards? ( )
1-9
Issues (and Siq)porting Information Sources):
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable
bmsh, grass, or trees? ( )
Potentially
Significant
Inqnct
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigaticm
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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. UTILFFIES 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) Communications systems? ( )
JL
X
I - 10
Issues (and Si^crting Information Sources):
c) Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities? ( )
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( )
e) Storm water drainage? ( )
f) Solid waste disposal? ( )
g) Local or regional water supplies? (
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigaticm
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
JL
JL
JL
JL
X
xm. 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) Disturb 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 Siqjporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigaticm
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant 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 California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects)
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directiy or indirectly?
X
1-12
XVn. EAIU.IER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following
on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
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. Uiese 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-attaimnent basm", any additional air emissions are
considered cumulatively significant: tiierefore, 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 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 Sigitificant 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, mcluded 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 Fmal Master EIR, mcluding this project, therefore, no further environmental
review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department.
CmCULATION:
The hnplementation 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 acconmiodate 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 altemative 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 mcorporated 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
"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.
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 constmcted in 1932 as an automobile dealership and converted to
retail/wholesale bakery outlet to include delivery tmck 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. Paridng is to be
provided on site and within 300 feet of the property, which is in accord with the requirements of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code. The restaurant use is consistent witii 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 MTTIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM QF APPLICABLE)
1-16
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MmGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MTTIGATING MEASURES
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
I - 17