The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1990-07-09; Planning Commission; Resolution 3055.. 0 0 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3055 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOR THE EXPANSION OF AN AUTO STORAGE USE AT THE NORTHWEST APPLICANT: BOB BAKER CASE NO: CUP 89-2CA) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 20th day of June, 15 9th day of July, 1990, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to c CORNER OF 1-5 AND CANNON ROAD. request, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all te arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted b considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considere, relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Co follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit "ND", da 1990, and "PII", dated May 1, 1990, attached hereto and made a part hereof, ' following findings: Findings: 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the projeci significant impact on the environment. 2. The site is a level site and currently accommodates up to 200 stored cars pq 3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed customers or general public will visit the site and all unloading of vehicles w onsite so the local street system will not be impacted. 4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be impacted by this project. I 0 0 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 9th day of July, 1990, by the following vote, 1 2 3 4 5 AYES: Chairperson Schramm, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Holmes, McFa, Marcus & Hall. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 6 7 d py+...p. r . -. . . . .. ABSTAIN: None. - -. - . __ --z-.""7,-:- ""_ ,.' "". _-, -,n---m d3ac a7k 8 9 ATTEST: SHARON SCHRA", Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION .i . . . ,/~ y I / ,c .. 1.A $, . 1 I' ,8, d ,.. !, A%&-:- ~..".. ,'. 'I /-~ /..,> 10 ./'/ I [ il{ v' " jJ.d&2tjl ~ ,i; ,/ ! ;' MICHAEL J. HO~ZMILL~R X' PLANNING DIRECTOR 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 PC RES0 NO, 3055 -2- 28 NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: NW comer of 1-5 and Cannon Road APN: 210-010-32 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Expansion of a storage lot for new vehicles as approvc CUP 89-2 The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above desc project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environml Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not h: significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justific; for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the PlaI Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments fron 45 days of date of issuance. DATED: May 10, 1990 y4 &$Mi$ MIcy J. HOLZN~ILLER APPLICANT: BOB BAKER PUBLISH DATE: May 10, 1990 public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the lanning Department VI CASE NO: CUP 89-2(A) Planni g Director ENM:lh 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 - (619) 438-1. e* 0. ENVIRONMENTAL JMPAm ASSESSMENT FOR"- PART 11 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CUP 89-2( DATE: MAY 1. 19 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: BOB BAKER STORAGE LOT EXPANSION CUP 89-2(AI 2. APPLICANT: BOB BAKER 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5500 PASEO DEL NORTE CARLSBAD. CA 92008 (619) 438-2200 4. DATE EIA FORM PART 1 SUBMITTED: DECEMBER 7, 1990 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: EXPANSION TO EXISTING STORAGE LOT FOR NE' PERMITI'ED BY CUP 89-2 FOR A FLAT LOT ON THE I OF CANNON ROAD AND 1-5. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City Environmental Impact Assessment to detemine if a project may have a significant effect on the ( The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a chc checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by . project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether tc Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration. * A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence tha or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, checked to indicate this determination. * An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any , project may cause a sinnificant effect on the environment. The project may qualify fo. Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects car insianificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings "YES-sig" an( respectively. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given 1 mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 0- WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Result in unstable earth conditions or increase the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards? Appreciably change the topography or any unique physical features? Result in or be affected by erosion of soils either on or off the site? Result in changes in the deposition of beach sands, or modification of the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? Result in substantial adverse effects on ambient air quality? Result in substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature? Substantially change the come or flow of water (marine, fresh or flood waters)? Affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public water supply? Substantially increase usage or cause depletion of any natural resources? Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? Alter a signrficant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure or object? -2- " YES YES Is& (inrig) - - - NO x X X X - X X X X X X X ew 0- BIOLOGICAL ENVIRON" WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, ,,rass, microflora and aquatic plants)? 13. Introduce new species of plants into an area, or a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? 14. Reduce the amount of acreage of any agricultural crop or affect prime, unique importance? or other farmland of state or local 15. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, aLl water dwelling organisms and insects? 16. Introduce new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? HUMANENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area? 18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? -3- YES YES Wg., Wig) - - YES YES Pig) tinrig) m- I"AN ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems? 20. Increase existing noise levels? 21. Produce new light or glare? 22. Involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? 23. Substantially alter the density of the human population of an area? 24* Affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 25. Generate substantial additional traffic? 26. Affect existing parking facilities, or create a large demand for new parking? 27. Impact existing transportation systems or alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? 28. Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic? 29. Increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 30. Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans? 31. Obstruct any scenic vista or create an aesthetically offensive public view? 32. Affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? -4- w YES (sig) - - - - W YES @-fig) X - X NO - X X - X X X X X X X X X X w .@ MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 33. 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, 34. 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.) 35. Does the project have the possible environmental effects which are in- dividually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively 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.) 36. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? YES YES (sig) (;.a - - - - - -5- m- " DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMEN EVALUATION PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 1. The expansion of the existing storage lot use will not impact the stability of earth conditions or cause geologic hazards since no grading is proposed. 2. No grading is proposed to alter the site's topography. 3. The site is flat and currently has no soil erosion conditions and the proposed use expansion will not cause soil erosion. 4. Due to the project's location there will be no impacts to beaches, rivers, bays, lagoons or lakes. Washing of cars may cause some areas of slight ponding but no water will drain offsite. 5. The expansion of the car storage use will not affect the area's air quality which is already impacted by the adjacent SDG&E power plant. Dust generation by this use will be insignificant since the surface is not soft dirt and is mostly covered with light gravel. 6. The proposed use will not alter air movement, odor, moisture or temperature. 7. Due to the project's location there will be no impacts to the flow of water courses. 8. The proposed use expansion is for storing new cars on the surface of the site so there will be no impacts to ground water or public water supplies. 9. The proposed project does not involve the use of any natural resources. 10. No amounts of fuel or energy are proposed with this CUP Amendment. 11. No cultural or archeological resources are located on the site. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 12. The subject site is flat and barren with mature shrubs and Eucalyptus trees around the north, east, and southern perimeter which will not be removed or impacted. 13. The project will not introduce any plant species to the site or area. 14. There is no agricultural use or land on the site to be impacted. 15. The site has no population of or habitat for significant species of animals. 16. The project will not introduce any animal species to the site or area. -6- w W SCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (CONTI: 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. The proposed CUP Amendment will be approved for a specific time (5 years), with yearly review, so if the use proves to be incompatible it can be modified or eliminated. The General Plan designation for the site is Travel Services and the proposed use expansion will not preclude the development of this site as such at a future the. The project will not impact the need or availability of public utilities or services. Expanding the storage of new cars will not involve the need for modified sewer systems, waste systems or the implementation of a hazardous waste system. Noise levels will not be increased by the addition of more cars stored on the site. New light will not be produced by the proposal but glare may be increased on a sunny day assuming the storage lot is nearly full and solar radiation is reflected off the cars rooftops. This potentially increased glare will not affect public safety or the operation of adjacent land uses and would be mostly screened by existing landscaping. Chemicals, pesticides, and hazardous materials will not be involved with this project and no significant risk of an explosion is present. The project will have no impact on the area's or the city's density of human population. No impacts to existing housing or the need for additional housing will result from this project. A security trailer is proposed with this CUP Amendment but it will not serve as a residence. No additional traffic will be generated by the project. A condition of approval will be that all unloading of cars will be onsite so no traffic impacts to Cannon Road are anticipated. Parking needs are not related to this project. The storage of additional cars on the site will not alter existing transportation systems or the movement of goods and/or people. Due to the project's location there will be no alteration of air, rail or waterborne traffic. Use of the site for storing new cars will not increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians. The proposed project will not prevent the implementation of an emergency plan. -7- I!!!!- " DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMEN EVALUATION (CONT): 31. The site is adjacent to the SDG&E power plant so the project will not obstruct any scenic vistas. If the site is completely full of new cars it may be considered an aesthetically offensive public view. However, this view would only be from the adjacent freeway and the site is mostly screened by mature shrubs and Eucalyptus trees on the north, east and southern perimeters. Part of the yearly CUP review will access the adequacy of screening. Additional screening will be required if the present screening proves inadequate. 32. The project will have no impacts to the quality or quantity of recreational opportunities in the area or the City since it is designated for Travel Service Uses. 33. The project will have no significant impacts to the environment or affect plant or animal species or eliminate an important example of California history. 34. The project presents no short term advantage at the expense of a long term disadvantage, since it is a conditional use. 35. The project has no cumulative environmental impacts, which combined with other impacts could lead to significant environmental impacts. 36. The project will not adversely affect human beings, either directly or indirectly. -8- e AN*ALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATMZS TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SU 9. H 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) alternate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative. A) Phasing the additional cars for storage is not necessary, The applicant wishes to gaj approval for a maximum use scenario and actually use it as the need to store ca varies. B) The proposed site design is adequate in that it allows for the unloading of vehicle and circulation. C) The proposed scale of development is acceptable. The need for this use requires th scale proposed. D) Uses allowed by the General Plan would be acceptable but this use is allowed by a CU for the time frame it would be approved for. E) The need for this use is immediate; development at this time is acceptable. F) The proposed site is acceptable for the proposed use expansion. There are very fel other sites in the City that could accommodate this needed use. G) The no project alternative would leave the existing CUP in place, which approves 20 cars. The need to store additional cars brought about the CUP Amendment. -9- e- m- 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, a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. - I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, thert not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attache sheer 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, an( ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. , ~ ” . 3. Cj L? E,& ,PILL”& Date Signature 2 ,” ;.-, ,,A ..I f ,: - 7 o[; ,+/- - /.’/ c -rQ+:L $kJ- .:> - 1 - / Date Director / LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE1 ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE1 -1 0- .% v v 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 ENM:lh -11-