The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1989-08-02; Planning Commission; Resolution 2902I1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1.1 1.2 3i3 114 :L 5 :I 6 3.7 118 :L 9 :2 0 2 1 22 12 3 24 25 ;2 6 (2 7 ,2 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2902 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARL: CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A NEGI: DECLARATION FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT AN AUTOM( DEALERSHIP WITH IN CARLSBAD CAR COUNTRY. APPLICANT: PACIFIC JEEP/EAGLE CASE NO.: SDP 89-10 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 2nd day of August, a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider sa. and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and consi testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, t Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declara NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Cor fol 1 ows : A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, t Commission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative according to Exhibit "ND" dated May 31, 1989 and "PII", da, 1989, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on th findings: Findinqs: 1. A field survey plus Part I1 of the initial study and cowmen during the public review process show that there is no evidence that the project may have a significant imp; environment. 2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to the approve and Grading Plan for CT 87-3. The proposed finish gradi' project will not significantly alter the site. 3. Car Country Drive has been designed to accommodate the trafi dealerships are expected to generate. 4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite. The EI Assessment for CT 87-2 identified an archaeological site tract, but the impact on archaeological resources has beer mitigated by conditions of a previous environmental review. 0 0 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day o 1989, by the following vote, to wit: 1 2 3 AYES: Chairman Hall, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm, E 4 NOES: 5 McFadden, Holmes & Marcus. None 6 ABSENT: None. 7 ABSTAIN: 8 9 ~ CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION lo 11 ATTEST: 14 15 16 17 18 19 i 2o I 21 I1 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PC RES0 NO. 2902 -2- I NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: The south side of Cannon Road, west of Car ( Drive. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for a Site Development Plan to construct 2 dealership, including showroom and service buildings. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above de project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the Cal Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of t of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (decl that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file P1 anning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file P1 anning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carl sbad, Cal i forni a 92009. Cl from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the P Department within thirty (30) days of date of issuance. DATED: May 31, 1989 CASE NO: SOP 88-13 P1 anning Director APPLICANT: Pacific Jeep/Eagl e PUBLISH DATE: May 31, 1989 AML: af 2075 Las Palmas Drive 0 Carlsbad. California 92009-4859 o (619) 42 __ - -. - . - - "_ .." - - - - NOT OF UllPLETIOW AN0 EYVIRMWEYTAL mYT card e 0 K SCH * 1. Project Title Pacific Jeep/Eagle (SOP 88-13) 2. Lead Agency: City Of Carlsbad 3. Contact Person: Adrienne Landers 3a. Street Address: 2075 LaS Palms Drive 3b. City: Car l sbad 3c. County: San Dieso 3d. Zip: 92009 3e. Phone: 614-438-1161 PROJECT LOCATION 4. County: San Diego 4a. City/Comnunity: Carlsbad &b.(optional) Assessor’s Parcel NO. 211-080-07 4c. Section: Tup. Range - Sa. Cross streets: Pslomar Airwrt Rd./Cannon Road 5b. Nearest Comnunity: 6. Uithin 2 miles of: a. State Huy NO. 1-5 b. Airports Palmar c. Wateruay! 7. DOCUMENT TYPE 8. LOCAL ACTION TYPE 10. DEVELOPMENT TYPE For Rural, CEaA 01 - General Plan Update 01 - Residentiai: Units Acres __ 01 - NOP 02 - Early Cons 03 X Neg Dec 04 - Draft EIR 05 - Supplement/ (if so, prior SCH # 1 Subsequent EIR NEPA - 06 - Notice of Intent 07 - Envir. Assessment/ 02 - Neu Element 03 - General Plan Amendment 04 - Master Plan 05 - Annexation 06 - Specific Pian 07 - Redevelopnent 08 - Rezone 09 - Land Division (Subdivision, Parcel Map. Tract Map, etc.) 10 - Use Permit 02 - Office: Sq. Ft. Acres Employees 03 - Shopping/Comnercial: Sq. Ft. Acres . Employees 04 - industrial: Sq. Ft. Acres Enpl oyees 05 - Sewer: MGO 06 - Water: MGO 07 - Transportation: Type 08 - MineraL Extraction: Mineral FONSI 08 - Draft EIS 11 - Cancel Ag Preserve 09 - Pouer Generation: Wattage OTHER 12 x Other Site Develocment Type: 09 I Information Only Plan 10 X Other: Auto Dealership 10 - Final Oocunent 9 TOTAL ACRES: 2.70 11 - Other: 11. PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN OOCUMENT 01 - Aesthetic/Visual 08 - Geologic/Seismic 15 - Sewer Capacity 22 - Water Suppl) 02 - Agricultural Land 09 - Jobs/Housing Balance 16 - Soit Erosion 23 - Uetland/Rips 03 - Air auality 10 -Minerals 17 - Solid Waste 24 - Uildlife 04 - Archaeological/Historical/ 11 - Noise 18 - Toxic/Hazardous 25 - Growth Induc Paleontological 12 - Public Services 19 - Traffic/Circulation 26 - Incompatible 05 - Coastal 13 - Schools 20 - Vegetation 27 - Cunulative E 06 - Fire Hazard 14 - Septic Systems 21 - Water Quality 28 - Other 07 - Flooding/Drainage 12 FUNDING (approx.) Federal s State S Total L 13 PRESENT LAND USE AND ZONING: RRE (Extensive Regional Retail); c-2-9 14 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 8,100 square foot display and service building uithin the Carlsbad Car Country Specific PI 15. SIGNATURE OF LEA0 AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE: ?I -/UA&,r-LG h/)t,&&f. IL 1 Oate: J-jh 574 NOTE: Clearinghouse wilt assign identification numbers for all new projects. If a SCH Nmr already exists for project (e.g. from a (Notice of Preparation or previous draft docmnt) Please fill it in. a - .-Resources Agency KtVltWINb AtitNLltS 0 CTRPA (Cal TRPA) .-Air Resources Board -,Conservation Fish and Game X Coastal Commi ss i on Caltrans District - Cal trans - Planning Caltrans - Aeronautics California Highway Patrol I Boating and Waterways Forestry State Water Resoruces Control Board - Headquarters Regional Water Qual i ty Control Board, Reg i on Division of Water Rights (SWRCB) Division of Water Quality (SWRCB) Department of Water Resources Recl amat i on Board Solid Waste Management Board Col orado River Board TRPA (Tahoe RPA) Bay Conservation & Dev't Comr Parks and Recreation Office of Historic Preservat Native American Heritage Comr State Lands Comm Public Utilities Comm Energy Comm Food and Agriculture Health Services Statewide Health Planning (hc Housing and Community Dev't Corrections General Services Office of Local Assistance Public Works Board Office of Appropriate Tech. ( Local Government Unit (OPR) Santa Monica Mountains Conser Other - ~ ~ ~~~~ FOR SCH USE ONLY Date Received at SCH . Catalog Number Date Review Starts Proponent Date to Agencies Consultant Date to SCH Contact Phone Clearance Date Address Notes: - - - . - . - . - ENVIRO &AL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FO I@ - PART 11 (TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. SDP 88-13 DATE : MAY 15. 1989 I. BACKGROUND 1. APPLICANT: Pacific JeeD/Eaale 2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 15 Brookdale Irvine, CA 92714 3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: December 5, 1988 11. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written under Section 111 - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) YES MAY BE! 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? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering of modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? 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? 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 I X X ” x a 4. Plant Life - Will.the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life - Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of anyl species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna) ? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise - Will the proposal significantly increase existing noise levels? 7. Liaht and Glare - Will the proposal sig- nificantly produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? -3- a YES MAY BE - - W 0 YES MAY BE NO - - 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 UDset - 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? -4- - > - 3 x x X - X X x X X X 3 e - Y d 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. Enersv - 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 any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? significant results' in the creation of -5- MAY BE 0 e - YES MAYBE * 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? > - 19. Recreation - Will the proposal have significant results in the impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? x 20. Archeolosical/Historical/Paleontoloqica& - 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 ProDosed Droject 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 buildings cannot be phased. b) Alternate site designs could not be substantially different thereby having a lesser impact. c) The proposed development is in scale with the lot size and surrounding uses. A larger development could be accommodated and a smaller project would not fully use the pregraded lot. d) The Specific Plan, 19-C, limits development to new and used car sales. No alternate use is allowed. e) Development at a future date would leave a pregraded lot vacant and would have no appreciable environmental or aesthetic advantages. f) Auto dealerships are limited to specific areas within the City. This site is designated for auto dealerships and is generally the most suitable for the use. g) No project would leave a pregraded auto related designated site va with no alternate use allowed and no environmental advantage. -6- . I. e E Ys MAY BE 22. Mandatorv findinqs of siqnificance - a. Does the project have the potential to substantially 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 en- dangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 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 the possible environmental effects which are in- considerable? (llCurnulatively con- siderable" means that the incremental effects of an individual 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.) dividually limited but cumulatively d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 111. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The proposed project is in accordance with the Zoning and Gene] designations of the site and is compatible with the surroundir comprising similar dealerships in an auto park. -7- W DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued) a 11.1. Earth: The site is pregraded. Minimal fine-grading will be required to accomm the building. A split floor-level 1s proposed to minimize soil disturb 11.2 Air: The proposed use will not contribute significant levels of particulates automobile engines. the air or create objectionable odors. Emissions would come only 11.3 Water: construction of buildings and paving will affect absorption and ru patterns. However, the required provisions for drainage, runoff cont and desilting, together with irrigation of landscaped areas, will offsel adverse impacts. 11.4 Plant Life: 5. Animal Life: Some natural vegetation has been removed with the rough grading and preparation. The area contains no significant plant or animal 1 Ornamental plants will be introduced in the landscaping area. Lands plans will be reviewed by the Planning Department to ensure compatibi with existing conditions and vegetation .on and offsite. 11.6. Noise Relative noise impacts will be minimal given the close proximity to th 5 freeway. Noise contributors to the project will be limited primaril automobiles and occasional loudspeaker use. 11.7. Light & Glare There will be an increase in light and glare Since the site is Presel undeveloped. Project will be conditioned to ensure minimum adverse imE from light. Surrounding uses are the same and Will be using simj lighting. 11.8 Land Use The site is part of a Specific Plan which allows no other land use than t which is proposed. 11.9 Natural Resources Other than the indirect consumption of fossil fuels for each individual at the proposed dealership there will neither be an increase in the use any natural resources nor the depletion of non-renewable natural resour= -8- DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONM AL EVALUATION (Continued) Em 0 11.10 Risk of Upset Because the amount of hazardous substances (products assoc automotive care and service) are limited and the nature in whic stored is secure, there would be a minimal risk of explosion OK 11.11 Population potentially employees of the proposed auto dealership could I Carlsbad if they are not presently residents. However, the relat numbers would not have significant impacts. 11.12 Housing Job opportunities offered by this project may create a need for nt The city of Carlsbad General Plan has designated areas for I industrial and commercial projects. 11.13 Transportation and Circulation . development which will provide new housing to supply the demand Conditions of approval for CT 87-3 (Car Country Expansion) provi stops with facilities at points within the project to be determine County Transit. The additional traffic generated by this project has been asses Engineering Department, and any improvements that will be rf existing circulations systems will be provided by the applicant c by the City under the terms of the Public Facilities Agreement, d 6, 1988. 11.14 Public Services The Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 3 was amended to p the increased demand on Local Facilities that the Car Country Exp 87-3, SP-l9(C)) will generate. This amended zone plan will ensur public facilities required by this project will be provided ir manner. 11.15 Energy Energy consumption will be typical for the proposed use. Additio sources will not be required. 11.16 Utilities See item 11.14 above. 11.17 Human Health There is no evidence based on the information provided that thc risk to human health as a result of this proposal. -9- L DISCUSSION OF ENVIRON-AL EVALUATION (continue- 11.18 Aesthetics: The grading, architecture, and landscaping of the project is compatible the surrounding uses and is visually.attractive. Special attention has given to those slope areas and building elevations which will be the visible from 1-5. 11.19 Recreation As determined by the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zont recreational facilities are met and exceeded. Therefore, there is no to provide additional facilities. 11.20 Archaeological No archaeological sites have been formed on this project. Mitiga measures for nearby archaeological sites have been provided as condit of approval for CT 87-3. -10- A ' * 'IV. DETERMINATION (TO 0 Completed By The Plannir&epartrnent) On the basis of this initial evaluation: X I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant efft the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a signij effect on the environment, there will not be a significant ef this case because the mitigation measures described on an att 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 environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. .3+92& .'I -. (,&Lce7+,?.L 4- / Date Signature] a .a\ .37,22/$7 (,&!..fLce/Z+,?.L (&+-&a/ / Date Signature] </ z&q - q ,,4,%,djd,J@&& \ $4 & -. Ddte Plannind Dir'dtor V. MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable) -11-