Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-10-04; Planning Commission; Resolution 3799b. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 * 9 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3799 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EXTENSION TO OPERATE A FARMER'S MARKET IN THE NORTHERN SECTION OF THE PEA SOUP ANDERSENS PARKING LOT AT 805 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD. CASE NAME: CARLSBAD CERTIFlED FARMER'S CASE NO: CUP 9447x1 MARKET a WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 4th day of October, 1995 9 10 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimol 11 12 arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff 13 considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all fi 14 relating to the Negative Declaration. 15 a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Corn l6 iI as follows: 17 18 19 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the P1a1 Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to E made a part hereof, based on the following findings: 20 "ND", dated July 20, 1995, and "PII", dated July 17, 1995, attached heretc 21 22 23 24 26 2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environmental analysis. 25 significant impact on the environment. 3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed projeci 27 4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be signific 28 impacted by this project. Findings: 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may h I1 -. e 0 1 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the P 2 following vote, to wit: 3 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of October, 1995, 4 5 AYES: Chairperson Welshons, Commissioners Compas, Erwin, r Noble and Savary. 6 NOES: None 7 ABSENT: Commissioner Monroy 8 9 10 I ABSTAIN: None 11 12 13 14 ATTEST: KIM WELSHONS,. &airperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMIS > 15 16 17 18 PLANNING DIRECTOR 20 19 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PC RES0 NO. 3799 -2- -. .. - a City 0 of Carlsbad ~ - NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: The northern section of the Pea Soup Andersen’s parking lot a 850 Palomar Airport Road in Local Facilities Management Zone 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A conditional use permit extension for a thirty-three (33) stall Farmer’s Market. 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 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Christer Westman in the Planning Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4448. DATED: JULY 20, 1995 CASE NO: CUP 94-07x1 Planning Director CASE NAME: CARLSBAD CERTIFIED FARMERS MARKET PUBLISH DATE: JULY 20, 1995 CWxd 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-1 161 -. 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THEi PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CUP ! DATE: July BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Carlsbad Certified Farmer‘s Market 2. APPLICANT: Paul & Magdalena Ecke Poinsettia Foundation c/o Cynthia Bueker 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 5600 Avenida Encinas. Suite 100 Carlsbad, CA 92008 (6 19) 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: June 9,1994 5. PROJECT DESCRIETION: The extension of a Conditional Use Permit for a Thirty-three (33) I Farmer‘s Market. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact”, or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mi Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. - Land Use and Planning x Transportation/Circulation .- Public Services - Population and Housing - Biological Resources - Utilities and Service S - Geological Problems - Energy and Mineral Resources - Aesthetics - Water - Hazards - Cultural Resources x( Air Quality - Noise - Recreation - x Mandatory Findings of Si@lcance 1 Rev. 3/28/95 .. 0 e 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 environment, and a NEGATIY DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will n be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have bet added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a sigmfkant effect on the environment, and : ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 1 find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least 0. potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicab legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as describt on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIO is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NC be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequate in an earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) ha1 been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR 1 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIOI including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notic of Prior Compliance has been prepared. Planner Signature $- I I #/ \w?7 .&u '")I ," . 71 It/45- Date I I CW:vd 2 Rev. 3/28/95 ” e 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Envirc Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a si@lcant effect on the environment. The Envin Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any : biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with infc to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Dec 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 adequate1 supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “NO Impact answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simpl: does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained whe: there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as genera standards. “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impac is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies e “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigatioj measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significan. Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly 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 6 significant. ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ Based on an “EIA-Part ?I”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but &l 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, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). When “Potentially Significant 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. 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 environment. 3 Rev. 3/28/95 0 e 0 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if the1 are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigatio measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriat “Potentially Signifkant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigate Negative Declaration may be prepared. An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limite to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed c mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree t mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than signifrcant; (2) a “Statement of Ovemdin Considerations” for the signifcant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) propose mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Pa 11 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, c determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect tc below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the fon DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to di mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 4 Rev. 3/28/95 0 e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially significant Potentially Unless LeSsThan Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact Il I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): 1 - - - b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( 1 - - - c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( 1 - - - d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? ( 1 - - - e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? ( 1 - - - II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( 1 - - - b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( 1 - - - c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( 1 - - - * III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) - - - b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) - - - c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? 0 - - - 5 Rev. 3/28/95 0 0 .Issues (and Supporting Informaticm Sources): Potentially Sinificaut Potentially Unless LessThan Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact I d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( ) - - - e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) - - - f) Erosion, changes in topography or uflstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) - - - g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) I- - - h) Expansive soils? ( ) - - - i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) - - - IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ( ) - - - b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) - - - 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? ( 1 - - - g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? 0 - - - h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) - - - 6 Rev. 3/28/95 0 e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? 0 - V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) x b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) - c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) - d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) - VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 - b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farrn equipment)? ( ) - c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) - d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 0 - e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? 0 - f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) - g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ( ) - Potentially Significant UdeSS Mitigation Incorporated - - - - - - - - - - - - LessThan Significant Jmpac t k - - - - - X - - - - - - - 7 Rev. 3/28/95 0 0 .Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Impact VII. 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, anunals, and birds? ( 1 - b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? 0 - c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( ) - d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal Pool)? ( 1 - e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) - Potentially Significant Unless LessThan Mitigation Significant incorporated hwt I - - - - - - - - - - VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 0 - - - b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) - - - 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? ( 1 - - - 8 Rev. 3/28/95 0 * Issues (and supparting Infolmatim saurces): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless LessThan Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incaporated Impact Ir d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) - - - e) Increase fue hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ( 1 - - - X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) - - - b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) - - - XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) - - - b) Police protection? ( ) - - - c) Schools? ( 1 - - - d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) - - - e) Other governmental services? ( 1 - - - XII. UTEITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the 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? ( 1 - - - c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) - - - d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( 1 - - - e) Storm water drainage? ( 1 - - - 9 Rev. 312819. 0 e .Issues (and supporting Infomation sources): f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) c) Create light or glare? ( 1 XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) c) Affect historical resources? ( 1 d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( 1 e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( 1 b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( 1 Potentially Significant Impact - - - - - - - - - - - - Potentially Significant UdeSS LessThan Mitigation Significant Incarporated Impact h - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10 Rev. 3/28/95 a 0 issues (and Supporting InfFation Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially UnleSS Significant Mitigation impact Incorporated XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade 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? - - quality of the environment, substantially reduce the 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) - X - c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? - - LessThan Significant Impact Il - - - 11 Rev. 3/28/95 0 0 , DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I I. LAND USE PLANNING The proposed use is permitted within the zone with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Tht been in operation for a period greater than 6 months and there has been no physical evidence that ( of the Farmer’s Market is incompatible with the existing uses in the vicinity. II. POPULATION AND HOUSING Because the proposal is the intermittent use of a parking lot for the retail sale of produce, it will not existing housing, induce growth within the area, or become a factor in increasing population within th III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS There is no requirement for the alteration of the existing land form to ammmodate the proposed 1 site is an existing parking lot which was approved as part of the Pea Soup Andersen’s project. A Declaration was issued August 28, 1980 which determined that there were no sigmfkant geologic which should preclude the site from being developed. IV. WATER Because the project is the intermittent use of a parking lot for the retail sale of produce, there is no ex that there would be created any impact to SuIface or ground water quality. The site is an existing pl which was approved as part of the Pea Soup Andersen’s project. A Negative Declaration was i August 28, 1980 which determined that there would be no significant impact to water which would the site from being developed. V. AIR OUALITY The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1991 Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides oi and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment ba additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development tc as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air qualj region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of n measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for road intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trip the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to e alternative modes of transportatian including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adop applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporate( design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. 12 Rev. 3/28/92 - “ w Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within z “nonattainment basin”, 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 certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Oi Ovemding Considerations” for air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applie2 to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. VI. TRANSPORTATIONKIRCULATION The addition of the use to the existing parking lot will create an increase in the number of vehicle trips durini hours of Farmeis Market operation. The number of additional trips has been estimated to be between 4oC and 500 Average Daily Trips (ADT) which is an insignificant number given the design capacity of Paseo De: Norte and Palomar Airport Road. Sufficient parking has been provided for the operation of the market on an adjacent dirt lot with appropriate ingress/egress and striping. In addition, the implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updatec 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate tc accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted bj regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freewal interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation oj roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Managemen performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigatior measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provisior of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation suck 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 frorr a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction oj the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have eithel been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively signdlcant because of the failure ol intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Si@lcant 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 Ovemding 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. 13 Rev. 3/28/95 a e . VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The site is an existing parking lot and adjacent vacant dirt lot. There is no significant habitat presen The surrounding properties are developed or are in agricultural production. WI. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES The operation of the Farmer% Market will consist of the setup of various tables for the display of Because the hours of operation are during daylight there is no need to use any power source. The ( of the market' will also not require the need for excavation of any raw materials from the site. IX. HAZARDS Goods sold at the market will consist of food items. No hazardous materials are a part of the c Petroleum products are necessary for the operation of the vehicles transporting the food items and t be chemicals contained within the portable toilets required to be made available to the market However, in either case, the hazardous material will be contained in a manner that is commonly acl insignificant. x. - NOISE Although the market will not create noise of significant levels, the site is adjacent to the freeway whic a significant level of noise. The Carlsbad General Plan identifies requirements for the mitigation impacts to residential and other noise sensitive land uses. Generally commercial uses are not conside sensitive and are therefore considered acceptable within areas which are impacted by higher levels XI. PUBLIC SERVICES No additional public services are required by the Farmer's Market nor is there an unproportionally s: level of service required for the operation of the market. XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS The operation of,the market will not require new systems or supplies, or alteration to any utilities. XIII. AESTHETICS There are no structures proposed. There will be no alteration of the land form. The vehicles whic the produce to market will be parked in an orderly fashion and the produce displayed in an appealq Although arguably the view of produce trucks is not generally considered scenic, the impact will be f period of time on an intermittent basis and can be considered insignificant. XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES Use of the site was previously reviewed for cultural significance and a Negative Declaration was August 1980. No further disturbance of the site will take place and therefore a determination that be no significant impacts to cultural resources can be made. 14 Rev. 3/28/9: 0 0 , XV. RECREATION * The use will be entirely contained within an existing parking lot and the adjacent vacant lot. Neither is a site of recreation recognized by the City. The activity of the farmer's market will not create the additional recreational opportunities within the city nor will it reduce the recreational opportunities I available within the City limits. XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The potential of the proposed use to degrade the quality of the environment is severely limited. Direci to fish or other wildlife habitat is improbable because the farmer's market is proposed entirely v existing parking lot and adjacent vacant dirt lot. The lands surrounding the site have been develop< variety of commercial uses as well as the freeway immediately to the west. Previous discussion has identified that there are no sigmfkant impacts which will result from implen of the proposed project. The projects contribution to cumulate traffic impacts were anticipated in Master EIR 93-01, adopted by City Council Resolution No. 94-246 which included a Statement of 0 Considerations. * 15 Rev. 3/28/9!