Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-07-06; Planning Commission; Resolution 2756d 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 0 0 .PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2756 ,A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ESTABLISH A HYUNDAI DEALERSHIP IN CAR COUNTRY EXPANSION. APPLICANT: CARLSBAD HYUNDAI CASE NO.: SDP 88-4 WHEREAS, the -Planning Commission did on the 6th day of July, 1988, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and WHEREAS, at said ~ public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit rrNDrl and IrPIIrr, dated May 27, 1988, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findinqs: 1. A field survey and Part I1 of the initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant impact on the environment. 2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to the approved Final Map and grading plan of CT 87-3. The proposed fine-grading for this project will not significantly alter the site, and will require no import or export of soil. 3. vvAmv street and "Bn street in the Car Country Expansion have been designed to accommodate the traffic that the dealerships are expected to generate. , // 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 4. There are no sensitive resources on the site. Environmental assessment for CT 87-3 identified an archaeological site within the tract, but this project does not come within the limits of this site. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of July, 1988, by the following vote, to wit: AYES : Chairman McFadden, Commissioners: Marcus, Schlehuber, Holmes, Erwin & Schramm. NOES : ABSENT: Hall ABSTAIN : Le %c$& JmNE MCFADDEN, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 15 )I ATTEST: 16 17 18 II PLANNING DIRECTOR 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PC RES0 NO. 2756 -2- "_...I. . ,111 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92UO9-4859 TELEPHONE (619) 438-1 161 _I PUNNING D€PARTM€NT NEGATIVE DEC"E1ON PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Lots 4 and 5, CT 87-3, east of Paseo del Nortep south of Cannon Road, north of Palomar Airport Road. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Hyundai aut0 dealership for new and used sales and service on two lots in the Car Country Expansion. 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, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009, Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within ten (10) days of date of issuance. DATED: May 27, 1988 CASE NO: SDP 88-4 Planning Director APPLICANT: CARLSBAD HYUNDAI PUBLISH DATE: May 27, 1988 EAHIEI I "r11- -0 0 ENVIRONMEIWAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. SDP 88-4 DATE : I. BACKGROUND 1. APPLICANT: CARLSBAD HYUNDAI 2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 4401 Manchester Avenue, Suite 206, Encinitas, California 92024 (619) 944-4090 3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: ARril 7. 1988 11. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written under Section I11 - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) YES MAY BE - NO 1. Earth - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? X X c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X d. The destruction, covering of modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel or a river or stream or the'.bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X 0 2. Air - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patters, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f, Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? -2- 0 - YES MAY BE - NO X X X X X X X X X X X -0 0 a. b. C. d. a. b. C. d. Plant Life - Will the proposal have significant results in: Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Animal Life - Will the proposal have significant results in: Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Noise - Will the proposal significantly increase existing noise levels? - YES . Lisht and Glare - Will the proposal sig- nificantly produce new light or glare? . Land Use - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? -3- MAY BE - NO X X X X X X X X X X 0 0 9. Natural Resources - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Umet - Does the proposal involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11. Population - Will the proposal signif- icantly alter the location, distribu- tion, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housinq - Will the proposal signif- icantly affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. TransDortation/Circulation - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking? c. Impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? - YES MAY BE - NO X X X X X X X X X X X -4- .a 0 - YES 14. Public Services - Will the proposal have a significant effect upon, or have signif- icant results in the need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Enerav - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities - Will the proposal have significant results in the need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health - Will the proposal have significant results in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? -5- MAYBE - NO X X X X X X v A X X X X X X X X -0 0 YES MAY BE - NO Aesthetics - Will the proposal have significant results in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in creation of an aesthetically offensive public view? X , Recreation - Will the proposal have significant results in the impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X ArcheoloaicalA-Iistorical - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? X . Analyze viable alternatives to the DroDosed Droiect such as: a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site designs, c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the site, e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter- nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative. The single building development cannot be phased. Alternate site designs which conformed to the existing topography and development and site requirements would not be substantially different. The proposed development is in scale with the lot size and surrounding uses, A larger development would be accommodated on this lot; a smaller development would not utilize the whole pre- graded lot. The specific plan for this site limits development to new and used car dealers. No alternate use is allowed. Development at a future time would leave a pre-graded site, and have no environmental or aesthetic advantages, Car dealerships are limited to certain areas within the City. This site is a dedicated auto park and is the most suitable site for this project. No project would leave a pre-graded site in an auto park , with no allowed alternate use and no environmental advantage. -6- -0 0 - YES MAY BE - NO Mandatorv findinas of sianificance - a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, or curtail the diversity in the environment? X b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the dis- advantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) X c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) X d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The proposed project is in accordance with the Zoning and General Plan designations of the site and is compatible with the surrounding uses, comprising similar dealerships in an auto park. The site development is restrained, and the building is smaller than could be supported by the site size. The architecture is attractively designed with a Spanish motif in keeping with surrounding buildings and includes canopies and arches to make it visually attractive. 11.1. Earth: The site is pre-graded. Minimal fine-grading will be required to accommodate the building. A split floor-level is proposed to minimize soil disturbance. -7- -e ,. 3USSION OF EkIRONhENTAL EVALUATION (Continued) 11.3. Water: Construction of buildings and paving will affect'absorption and runoff patters. However, the required provisions for drainage, runoff control, and desilting, together with irrigation of landscaped areas, will offset any .adverse impacts. 11.4. Plant Life; 5.' Animal Life: Some natural vegetation has been removed with the rough grading and site preparation. The area contains no significant plant or animal life. Ornamental plants will be introduced in the landscaping area. Landscape plans will be reviewed by the Planning Department to ensure compatibility with existing conditions and vegetation on and'offsite. '11.6. Light & Glare: r There will be an increase in light and glare since the site is presently undeveloped. Project will be conditioned to' ensure minimum adverse impact from light. Surrounding uses are the same and will be using similar lighting, 11.12. Housing: Job opportunities offered by this project may create a need for new housing. The City of Carlsbad General Plan has designated areas for residential development which will provide new housing to supply the demand created by industrial and commercial projects . 11.13. Transportation & Circuiation: Conditions of approval for CT 87-3 (Car Country Expansion) provide for bus stops with facilities at points within the project to be determined by North County Transit. The additional traffic generated by this project has been assessed by the Engineering Department, and any improvements that will be required to existing ci,rculations systems will be provided' by the applicant or provided by the' City under the terms of the Public Facilities Agreement, dated April 6, 1988. 11.14. Public Services: 16. Utilities: The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 3 was amended to provide for the increased demand on Local Facilities that the Car Country Expansion (CT 87-3, SP-l9(C) ) will generate. This amended zone plan will ensure that all public facilities required by this project will be provided in a timely manner. ,* -8- -0 a )ISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued) 11.18. Aesthetics: The grading, architecture, and landscaping of the project is compatible with the surrounding uses and is visually attractive. Special attention has been given to those slope areas and building elevations which will be the most visible from 1-5. 11.20. Archaeological: No archaeological sites have been formed on this project. Mitigating measures for nearby archaeological sites have been provided as conditions of approval for CT 87-3. -9- -0 0 V. DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) On the basis of this initial evaluation: - X I find 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 Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. /w cv Date / ,2&/0,,@ ' Dage r. MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable) -10- .. .. 0 ITIGATING MEASURES (Continued) VI. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING 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 -11-