HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-12-02; Planning Commission; Resolution 44201
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 I
28
0 0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4420
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE crry OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF AN AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP ON
PR.OPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON CAR COUNTRY
DFWE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 3.
CASE NAME: NISSAN NEW CAR DEALERSHIP
- CASE NO.: CDP 98-37 / SDP 98-08
WHEREAS, Saitama Nissan (USA) Corporation, “Developer”, ha
verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Rob
Townsend and Marilyn Jane Townsend, Trustees of the Townsend Family TruI
Dated May 30,11988, “Owner”, described as
Lo’t 5 of Carlsbad Tract No. 87-3, in the City of Carlsbad,
Calunty of San Diego, State of California, according to map
thereof No. 12242, filed in the office of County Recorder of San
Dilego County, dated October 28,1988.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 2nd day of Decemb
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 t
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by :
considering any .written comments received, the Planning Commission considered a
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the
Commission as follows:
A) Th.at the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) Th.at based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration acc
Exhibit ”ND” dated August 8, 1998, and “PII” dated August 8, 1998 attached hereto :
a part hereof, based on the following findings:
0 a
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
FindinFs:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, anal
considered the Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein identific
project and said comments thereon, prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVr
project. 13ased on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, the Planning COI
finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant eff
environment and hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative Decla
2. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Negative Declaration
prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Qu
the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of thc
Carlsbad.
3. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the inc
judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of December:
the following vot'e, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners Compas, Heineman, :
Savary, and Welshons
NOES:
Al3SENT: Commissioner Monroy
Al3STAIN:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
PC RES0 NO. 4420 -2-
0 0
- City of . Carlsba! e e
VDTq. - L
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: On the west side of Car Country Drive, north of Palomar Aiq
Road and south of Cannon Road, within the Car Country Spec
Plan area. Lot 5 of Parcel Map 12242
Project Description: Development of an auto dealership. The improvements 1
consist of a 5 1 13 .O square foot display and administrative build
and a 5722.5 square foot service building that will have 12 sen
bays. The site is a previously graded pad that slopes gently to
west. The balance of the site will consist of landscape areas
paving for onsite employee and customer parking and for
storage of vehicles for sale.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described proj
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act :
the Environmental Prote:ction Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said revieu
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Plann
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public i
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of d
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Van Lynch in the Planning Department
(760) 438-1 161, extension 4447.
DATED: AUGUST 8,1998
CASE NO: SDP 98-08
CASE NAME: NISSAN NEW CAR DEALERSHIP
PUBLISH DATE: AlJGUST 8,1998
MICHAEL J. HmZ"&LER
Planning Director
2075 La Palmas Dr. * Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 (760) 438-1 161 - FAX (760) 438-OE
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO B:E COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: SDP 98-08/CDP 98-
DATE: AUGUST 8.19
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME:mSAN NEW CAR DEALERSHIP
2. APPL1CANT:aTAMA NISSAN (USA) CORPORATION
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 4670 CONVOY STREET. Si
DIEGO, CA, 92 1 1 l1 (6 19) 43 1-3 100
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: MAY 6,1998
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Development of an auto dealership on the west side of Car Coun
Drive, north of Palomar Airport Road and south of Cannon Road, within the Car Count
Specific Plan area. The improvements will consist of a 3664 square foot display a
administrative building and a 3550 square foot service building that will have 12 service ba]
The site is a previously graded pad that slopes gently to the west.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this proje
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Imp:
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning IXI Transportation/Circulation Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources c] Utilities & Service Systems
Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards Cultural Resources
rn Air Quality Noise 0 Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on
environment, the:re will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigat
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATI'
DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, buj
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earl
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigat:
measures based Ion the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Mitiga
Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to
addressed.
[7 I find that althlough the proposed project could have a significant effect on
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentia
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Master Environmer
Impact Review (IMEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been void
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-0
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed proje
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
8-Jc-7E3
Plannerpignature Date
@/+I 8
Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
0 * ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDE:LINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the C
conduct an Environmen1:al Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a signific
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the follow
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and hum
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR}, Negati
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
’ A brief explanation is required for all answers except “NO Impact” answers that 1
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following e;
question. A “No1 Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced informati
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved.
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to.
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
a “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that t
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopt
general standards and policies.
a “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporatic
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to
“Less Than Sign:ificant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and t:
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce t
effect to a less than significant level.
a “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that I
effect is significant.
a Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significa
effect on the environment, but gJ potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzt
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicab
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigatf
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed up(
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the pric
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no addition;
environmental dolcument is required (Prior Compliance).
0 When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily require
to prepare an EIR. if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier E1
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement (
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
0 A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence th
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
-? 3 Rev. 03/28/96
e e
e If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant. a
those mitigation :measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In t
case: the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporatc
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked. and includi
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect I-
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, a
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less th
significant; (2) a ‘”Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact 1
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not redl
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is I
possible to dete~mine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect.
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significk
effect to below a llevel of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end oft
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attentil
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determin
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with gene:ral plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
(#l:Pg~ 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
0
0
0
0
0
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 0
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (eg. through projects in an undeveloped area 0
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 -
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 0
5.5-6)
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
b) Seismic ground shaking? ((#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
((#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1.15)
5.1-15)
5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
g) Subsidence ofthe land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15)
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorptilon rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of slurface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2- 0
such as flooding? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
11) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
- 3
e
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 a
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
Less Than No
Significant lmpa Impact
0 [XI
0 [XI
UEI
0 Ixl
a Ixl
0 [XI
0 [x]
0 [XI
0 [XI a [XI 0 [XI
0 [x]
0 [XI 0 [x]
El IXI 0 [XI
[XI 0
0 [XI
Rev. 03/28/96
e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)’? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
f) Changes 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? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
body? ((#I :P~s 5.2-11 - 5..2-11)
((#1 :Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
11)
5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
0
Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Less Than
Significant
impact
El
0
0
0
0
0
0
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected1 air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
1 - 5.3-12)
“5.3-12)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CI[RCULATION. Would the
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -
proposal result in:
5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:Pg~ 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:Pg~ 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
5.7.22)
ixI
0
0
0
[XI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Nc
Imp;
0
[x]
[XI
[x]
1xI
IXI
IxI
0 0
0 [XI
0 [XI
17 El
0 0
0 IXI
0 El
0 [XI
0 (XI
0 (XI
0 [x
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
6 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (# 1 :Pgs 5.4- 1 - 5.4-24)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitai:, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
(# 1 :P~s 5.4- 1 - 5.4-24)
d) Wetland habjtat (e,g4 marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pg~ 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1
- 5.4-24)
Potentially Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
cl
0
0
0
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
proposal?
(#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 0 0
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13- 0 0
1 - 5.13-9)
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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5
0 CI
& 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
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)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evaciuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
5.10.1-5)
hazards? (#I:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
grass, ortrees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
0
0
0
0
0
CI
0
0
0
CI
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-
b) Exposure of people tlo severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9- 15) 0 CI
1 - 5.9-15) 0 0
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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4) 0 o 0 0 0 0 C) Schools? (#1 :PgS 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
7
Less Than 7%)
Significant lmpa
Impact
[XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
DEI
0 [x1
0 [XI w
0 Ix1
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 w
0 €3
0 w
0 [XI
IE3
0 [XI 0 [XI 0 [XI
Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
Issues (and Supporting lnfom~ation Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant lmpa
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation Incorporated
d) Maintenance of public facilities. including roads?
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - (1:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-7) 0 0 !XI
0 0 0 [XI
XILUTILITIES 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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
b) Communications systems? (#l:Pgs. 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 0 0 0 w
0 0 o w 0 El o w facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.l2.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
e) Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.3-7)
0 0 w 0 0 o w 0 0 0 [XI 17 o [XI
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5)
5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5)
5.1 1-1 - 5.11-5)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
10)
1 0)
5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#I :Pgs
5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0 [XI
cl [XI
0 lx
o [XI w
0 IXI 0 [XI
0 [XI
o w
0 [XI
8 Rev. 03/28/96
e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife 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?
b) Does the project ha.ve 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)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
0
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impat Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated cl 0. 0 [XI
0 0 0 w
0 0 0 w
9 Rev. 03/28/96
0 a
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project involves the development of an automobile dealership on the west side of (
Country Drive within the Car Country Specific Plan (SP19) area. The improvements v
consist of a 51 I? square foot display and administrative building and a 5722.5 square f;
service building that will have 12 service bays. The balance of the site will consist
landscape areas and paving for onsite employee and customer parking and for the stor2
of vehicles for sale. The site is a previously graded pad that slopes gently (6'
downward to the west and is currently being used for vehicle storage. The site conta
non-native grasses and forbs. The western edge of the site has a 2:l downslope to
adjacent auto dealership and is a landscaped manufactured slope with eucalyptus trc
and various ornamental shrubs. The project is located within the coastal zone.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
1. Landuse: The site is landuse designated for Regional Retail and zoned for Gene
Commercial. The site is also within a Specific Plan (SP19) that designates the arl
uses as automobile dealerships. The proposed automobile dealership is consist
with the Specific Plan.
2. Population: The proposed commercial project will not impact populati
projections, induce substantial growth nor displace existing housing.
3. Geology: Because the site was previously graded, not in proximity to major fat
and is not within a flood prone area, there is little chance of fault rupture, seisr
shaking or failure, flooding, or subsidence.
4. Water: The site will result in an increase of surface runoff. There are drain:
facilities in place to accommodate the increase in surface runoff and no impacts v
result. The project will be conditioned to follow NPDES standards for water qualit:
5. Air Quality: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent vc
and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and elecl
power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result
increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides
nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the ma
contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Sir
the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions i
considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout
proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on i
air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associal
with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in 1
Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersecti
improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehic
trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demz
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportatil
including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building a
site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies wh
adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measul
have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included
conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are consider
cumulatively significant because the project is located within a “non-attainmc
basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Signific;
Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparati
of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by C.
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Consideration
for air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to i
subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including tl
project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is require
This document is available at the Planning Department.
6. TransportatiodCirculation: The implementation of subsequent projects that a
consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increas
traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildc
11 Rev. 03/28/96
e e
b
7.
traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted
regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. Thl
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections alc
Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements
number of intersections are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Managem
performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulat
associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have bt
recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure 1
provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to devel
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewal
pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regio:
circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic fron
failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are 1
within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate Gene
Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design
the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional rela,
circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure
intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefo
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This projc
is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is r
required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Coun
Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” :
circulation impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to
subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR, including this proje
therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required.
Biological: The site, being void of significant vegetation and it’s current use
a vehicle storage lot, does not have any biological significance.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
. e e
8. Items 8 through 15: Because the site is an infill project on an existing pregrac
pad with public services and utilities available to the site, there will not be 2
significant impacts related to energy and mineral resources, hazards, noise. put
services, utilities and service systems, aesthetics, cultural resources or recreatio
opportunities.
x'
111. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 9201
(760) 438-1 161, extension 4471.
I. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Upd;
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
13 Rev. 03/28/96
L' e 0
r LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
None .'
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
Not applicable
14 Rev. 03/28/96
L’ e e
r APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES .= . THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES A$
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
15 Rev. 03/28/96