Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-12-21; Planning Commission; Resolution 27991 0 e I 1 ll PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2799 2 3 4 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT TWO AUTO DEALERSHIPS FOR SALES AND SERVICE OF MITSUBISHI AND CADILLAC AUTOMOBILES. APPLICANT: CARLSBAD MITSUBISHI/CADILLAC ~ I CASE NO.: SDP 88-9 5 6 7 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 21st day of December, 1988, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and 8 /I WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all 9 10 testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning llllCommission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 I I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the P1 anning Commission as f 01 1 ows : A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the pub1 i c hearing, the P1 anni ng Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit "ND", dated September 16, 1988 and I'PII" dated September 9, 1988, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findinqs: 1. A field survey pl us Part I1 of the i ni t i a1 study and comments received during the public review process show 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 for CT 87-3. The proposed finish grading for this project (500 cu yds) will not significantly alter the site. 3. Car Country Drive has been designed to accommodate the traffic that the dealerships are expected to generate, 25 4. There are no sensitive resources located onsi te. The Environmental but the impact on archaeological resources has been adequately mitigated by 26 Assessment for CT 87-3 identified an archaeological site within the tract, 27 conditions of a previous environmental review. 28 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 0 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regul ar meeting of the P1 anni ng Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st day of December, 1988, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson McFadden, Commissioners: Schramm, Schl ehuber, NOES : Commi ssi oner Holmes . ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Erwin, Hall and Marcus. ATTEST: d b, ... G -p\ , .a 9*' /;P] .~~yu~L&;u,&/J&Jf*, ! a- MICHAEL J. HO~~M~LER 3 ,\ 1.p PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RES0 NO. 2799 -2- 0 0 EXHIBIT I’ND” 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE TELEPHONE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 (619) 438-1161 aitg of QLnrlsbnb PLANNING DEPARTMENT NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: The northern half of Lot 10, CT 87-3, east of Paseo Del Norte, south of Cannon Road and north of Palomar Airport Road. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Mitsubishi auto dealership for sales and service of new and used Mitsubishi cars in the Car Country Expansion area of Carlsbad. 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: September 16, 1988 \- \am& MICHAEL J. H~LZMI~R CASE NO: SDP 88-9 Planning Director APPLICANT: Pacific Coast Automotive Group PUBLISH DATE: September 16, 1988 MJH: CDD/af -. 0 0 EXHIBIT IIPll" ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11 (TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. SDP 88-10 DATE : 9-9-88 I. BACKGROUND 1. -APPLICANT: Pacific Coast Automotive Group 2. ADDRESS AND PHONE.NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2141 Palomar AirDort Rd. #350. Carlsbad. CA. 92009 3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: Ausust 18, 1988 I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written under Section I11 - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) 1. Earth - Will the proposal have significant results in: - YES MAY BE NO - a. unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X X 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 MAYBE - NO X X X X X X X X' X X X - 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? 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- - YES MAY BE - NO X X X X X X X X X X X 0 0 4. a. b. C. d. 5. a. b. C. d. 6. 7. 8. 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? Liaht 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- YES MAY BE - NO X X X X X X X X X X e 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 Upset - 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. Housing - Will the proposal signif- icantly affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/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- . 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? 1. Risk of Uwet - 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? 1. Pomlation - Will the proposal signif- icantly alter the location, distribu- tion, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 2. Housinq - Will the proposal signif- icantly affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 3. TransRortation/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 MAYBE - NO X X X 'X X X X X X X X -4- e 0 5 MAYBF l!?Q 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. Enerqy - 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- ~~~ ~~ ~ - X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ~ 0 0 - YES MAY BE NO - 18. 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 19. Recreation - Will the proposal have significant' results in the impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X 20. ,Archeoloqical/Historical/Paleontoloaical - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of a,significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure, object or building? X 21. Analyze viable alternatives to the txoposed proiect 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. a) The single building cannot be phased. b) Since the project site has already been previously rough graded, alternate site design consistent with the development standards of Specific Plan 19-C would not be substantially different or less impactful. c) The proposed development is in scale with the lot size and surrounding uses. A larger development could be accommodated on this lot; a smaller development would not occupy the entirety of this existing pregraded lot. d) This project is consistent with those uses allowed (new and used car dealerships) per Specific Plan 19-C. No alternate use is allowed. e) Development at a future time would leave a pregraded site undeveloped and would have no appreciable environmental advantages. f) Car dealerships are limited to limited areas within the City. This site is designated for auto park usage gand is suitable for this use. g) No project would result in a pregraded lot designated for auto park usage being left undeveloped with no allowed alternative use and no environmental advantage. -6- - 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 Archeolosical/Historical/Paleontoloaical - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure, object or building? X Analyze viable alternatives to the ProDosed 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. a) The single building cannot be phased. b) Since the project site has already been previously rough graded, alternate site design consistent with the development standards of Specific Plan 19-C would not be substantially different or less impactful. c) The proposed development is in scale with the lot size and surrounding uses. A larger development could be accommodated on this lot; a smaller development would not occupy the entirety of this existing pregraded lot. d) This project is consistent with those uses allowed (new and used car dealerships) per Specific Plan 19-C. No alternate use is allowed. e) Development at a future time would leave a pregraded site undeveloped and would have no appreciable environmental advantages. f) Car dealerships are limited to limited areas within the City. This site is designated for auto park usage gand is suitable for this use. g) No project would result in a pregraded lot designated for auto park usage being left undeveloped with no allowed alternative use and no environmental advantage. -6- e e - YES 22. 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? 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.) 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.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? I. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION MAY BE NO - X X X X The project would entail the development of a Mitsubishi Car Dealershipaon the previously graded northern half of Lot-10 (CT87- 3) within the expanded portion of Car Country Carlsbad, California. For this environmental analysis, staff conducted field trips to the site, and reviewed the negative declaration prepared for the tentative map (CT87-3) which subdivided and allowed the grading of the property. Conditions of approval for tentative map 87-3 have adequately mitigated environmental impacts from development of the site. There exists no sensitive environmental resource upon or in close proximity to the previously graded site. In addition, the proposed auto dealership is; 1) allowed by the Zoning and General Plan designations for the site, and 2) is compatible with the surrounding auto park uses. -7- a 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued) Overall, because 1) the property is already rough graded, 2) there exists no sensitive enVirO~mental resources on or near the property and 3) the use proposed would be compatible with surrounding auto park uses, no significant environmental impacts are anticipated. There were no public comments received during the public review period for this negative declaration. ? -8- DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued) Overall, because 1) the property is already rough graded, 2) there exists no sensitive environmental resources on or near the property and 3) the use proposed would be compatible with surrounding auto park uses, no significant environmental impacts are anticipated. There were no public comments received during the public review period for this negative declaration. -8- i .I * e 0 DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) On the basis of this initial evaluation: - 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. 4- l2-@0 QLJa D $&L Date Si&ature . Q\&%3 I Dkte " Planning Dirdor ITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable) -9- .. .' 0 MITIGATING MEASURES (Continued) e VI. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAW3 REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURE AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature -10- ITIGATING MEASURES (Continued) . 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 -10-