HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-03-15; Planning Commission; Resolution 2838T. ,. 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 I
20
21
22
23,
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2838
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND AUTO
DEALERSHIP FOR SALES AND SERVICE OF INFINITY AUTOMOBILES.
APPLICANT! CARLSBAD INFINITY CASE NO. : SDP 88-4(A)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day o
1989, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed b]
consider said request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and con:
all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, a:
the information submitted by staff, and considering any
comments received, the Planning Commission considered all
relating to the Negative Declaration.
I
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public the Planning Commission hereby recommends APPROVAI Negative Declaration according to Exhibit llND1l dated
1, 1989, "SCH" dated January 26, 1989, and IIPII' January 25, 1989, attached hereto and made a part based on the following findings:
Findinss:
.1. A field survey plus Part I1 of the initial study and received during the public review process show that no substantial evidence that the project may
significant impact on the environment,
2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to the Final Map, Grading Plan for Ct 87-3, and Site Develop
SDP 88-4.
...
-, 11 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 '!
10;
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 I
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3. Car Country Drive has been designed to accommodate the that the dealerships are expected to generate. The 1 of the Hyundai service access assures public streets I be impacted,
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California,
the 15th day of March, 1989, by the following vote, to wi.
AYES : Chairman Hall, Commissioners: Schramm, Schlehuber, Holmes, Erwin, McFadden & M,
NOES : None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
4-4 /
MICHAEL J. H~LZMI~~ER
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RES0 NO. 2838 -2-
I1
-. . ,,
b.
2075 US PALMAS ORIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859
0 0 __ """. -
('
8. Mitp of Grlsbab
PlANNlNG DEPARTMENT
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: On the southwest corner of Car Country Drive and I Court between Cannon and Palomar Airport Roads, east of 1-5.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An Amendment to an approved Site Development P1 an, to a second car dealership to a 4.67 acre site.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above descrl project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the Califor Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the ( of Carl sbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declarai that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is her issued for the subject project. Justification for this action 1s on file in P1 ann i ng Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in P1 anning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carl sbad, Cal ifornia 92009. Comme from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Plann Department within thirty (30) days of date of issuance.
DATED: February 1, 1989
CASE NO: SDP 88-4(A)
MICHAEL J. HOBMILLH " P1 anni ng Director
APPLICANT: Carlsbad Infinity
PUBLISH DATE: February 1, 1989
LBS :
Exhibit "SC *, hail to: State Clearinghouse, 1400 oh Street, Rm. 121, Sacramento, CA 95814 -.)/445-0613
NOTICE ff ColPLETIol Ay) EYVIRaN€NTM WQlOcT H]rw ;r; L sec m Belt
1. Project,Title Carlsbad Infinity ..
2. Lead Age&y: City of CIrlSbsd 3. Contact Person: Lance Schulte
3a. Street Address: 2075 .LaS Palms Drive 3b. City: Car Lsbad
3c. County: ' San Dieqo 3d. Zip: 92009 3e. Phone: 619 438-1162
PROJECT LOCATION 4. County: San Diew 48. Ci tylCannunity! Carlsbad
4b.(optional) Assessor's Parcel No. 211-01-11 4c. Section: Tup. Ran
Sa. Cross streets: Car Country Drive/Auto Court 5b. Nearest Camunity:
6. Within 2 miles of: a. State Hwy No. 1-5 b. Airports Palomar . c. Ua
7. DOCUnENT, TYPE 8. LOCAL ACTIOW TYPE 10. DEVELOPMENT TYPE
CEQA 01 - General Plan Update 01 - Residential: Units Acres ,
For Rural,
.- e
01 - MOP
02 - Early Cons
03 X Neg Des
04 - Draft EIR
05 - Supplement/
(if so, prior SCH #
)
Subsequent EIR
- NEPA
06 - Notice of Intent
07 - Envir.. Assessment/
02 - New Element
03 - General Plan Amencment
04 "aster Plan
05 - Annexation
06 - Specific Plan
07 - Redevelopent
08 - Rezone
09 - Land Division
(Subdivision, Parcel Map.
Tract Map, etc.)
10 - Use Permit
02 - Office: Sq. Ft.
Acres Empioyees -
03 X Shopping/comnercial: Sq. Ft. 12,803 add
Acres 4.67 total Employees 13 edditior
04 - Industrial: Sq. Ft.
Acres Enployees
05 - Sewer: MGD
06 - Water: MGD
07 --Transportation: Type
08 - Mineral Extractian: Mineral
FONSI "'
08 - Draft EIS 11 - Cancel Ag Preserve 09 - Power Generation: Wattage
OX 12 X Other Site Develomnt Type:
09 -.Information Only Plan Amendment 10 - Other:
10 - Final Document 9 TOTAL ACRES: 4.67
11 - Other:
11. PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT
01 - Aesthetic/ViswL 08 - Geologic/Seismic 15 - Seuer Capacity 22 - Water Sup
02 - Agricultural Land 09 - Jobs/Housing Balance 16 - Soil Erosion 23 - Wetland/R
03 - Air Quality 10 - Minerals 17 - Solid Waste 24 - Wildlife
04 - Archaeological/Historical/ 11 - Noise 18 - Toxic/Hazardous 25 - Grouth In
Paleontological 12 - Public Services 19 X Traffic/Circulation 26 - Incanpati
05 - Coastal 13 - Schools 20 - Vegetation 27 - Cunulativ
06 - Fire Hazard 14 - Septic Systems 21 - Water Quati ty 28 - Other -
07 - Flooding/Drainage
12 FUNDING (appeox.) Federal S State S Total t
.13 PRESENT LAND USE AND ZONING: According to the General and Spcific Plan for the area, the site is planned for
dealerships. This is a use consistent ui
14 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An Amencment to or a 4.67 acre site, to add a second
15. SIGNATURE OF LEAD AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE
"TE: Clearinghouse will assign identif project (e.g. fran a (Notice of P
0
Resources Agency
Air Resources Board
Conservation
Fish and Game
Coastal commi ss i on
Caltrans District
*.
- Gal trans - P1 anning
Cal trans - Aeronautics
California Highway Patrol
Boating and Waterways
P Forestry
State Water Resoruces Control
Board - Headquarters
Regional Water Qual i ty Control
REVIEWING AGENCIES
CTRPA (Cal TRPA)
TRPA (Tahoe RPA)
- Bay C,onservat ion & Dev't Comm
Parks and Recreat i on
Office of Historic Preservation
Native American Heritage Comm
State Lands Corn
Public Utilities Comm
Energy Corn
Food and Agricul tu+e .
Health Services
- Statewide Health Pl anni ng (hospi.ta1 s)
Housing and Community Dev''t
Corrections
Board, Regi on General Services
Division o-f Water Rights (SWRCS) Office of Local Assistance
Division of Water Quality (SWRCB) Public Works Board
Department of Water Resources Office of Appropriate Tech. (OPR)
Recl amat i on Board Local Government Unit (OPR)
Solid Waste Management Board l- Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
Col orado River Board i - Other
FOR SCH USE ONLY
Date Received at SCH Catalog Number
Date Review Starts Proponent
Date to Agencies Consultant
Date to SCH Contact Phone
Cl earance Date Address
Notes:
,. 0 0 I. . Exhibit If I
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT U@BSBMENT FORM - PART 11
(TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. SDP 88-4fA)
DATE : Januarv 25, 19E
I. BACKGROUNQ
1. APPLICANT: Pacific Coast Automotive Group
2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: c/o
2141 Palomar Aimort Road #350
Carlsbad. Ca 92009 (438-2211) ..
3. . DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: Januarv 25, 1989
11. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written under Section I11 - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
- YES MAYBE
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?
w
2. & - Will ?me proposal have significant results in:
a. Air emissions or deterioration
b. The creation of objectionable
c. Alteration of air movement,
of ambient air quality?
odors?
moisture or temperature, or any
' change in climate, either locally or regionally?
, 3. m - 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?
drainage patterns, 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
e. Discharge into surface waters,
b. Changes in absorption rates,
water in any water body?
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-
w
YES MYBE
- -
- -
- -
- -
-. NO
_x
X
3
2
x:.
- X
- X
- x
- X
- X
- X
YES.
4. Plant Tlife - 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?
e. 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 any 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-
MAYBE NO
X
X
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
..
.I
9. pratwal Resources - Will the proposal
a. Increase in the rate of use of any
have.signi2icant results in:
natural resources?
b. Depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resource?
10. Risk of Unset - 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. Ponulation - 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-
XES MAYEIE - NO
x
x
- x
v A
X
V A
X
X
X
X
x
*. ,. 0
4 YES -
14. Public Services - Will the proposal have a significant effect upon, 01: have signif- icant results in the need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas:
ab 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. Enercw - Will the prop.osa1 have significant results in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel .
b. Demand upon existing sources of
or energy?
energy, or require the development of new sources of energy?
16. Utilities - Will the proposal have signi.ficant results in the need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. ,Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. solid waste and disposal?
17. Human Health - Will the proposal have significant results in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)?
MAYBE
-
-
- -
-5-
.,
w w
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.proposa1 result in
creation of an aesthetically offensive
public view? - - X
19, Becreation - Will the proposal have significant results in the impact upon
the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities?
20. Archeoloaical/Historical/Paleontolo~ical
- X
- 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 DroDosed Droiect such as:
a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site designs, c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the site,
e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter-
nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative.
a) The project is an addition to an approved site plan.
b) See "a" above. Alternatives are limited. The original site plan has been slightly redesigned to accommodate this proposed addition.
c) Through redesign alternative scales were explored.
d) Would be inconsistent with the General and Specific Plan.
e) Would be more environmentally disruptive.
f) No more suitably designated land is available for the proposal.
g) This would be consistent with the original Site Development Plan.
-6-
-(. I A. e e
t YES ma>
22. Nandatorv findinas of sianificance -
a. Does the project have the potential
*. to substantially degrade the q'Uality 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-ter%., 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- 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.)
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
1 The project is an alteration and addition to an approved Si Development Plan. Except for new traffic impacts, no significE
additional impacts are presented by the project that have r
been addressed by the tentative for the area and the origir
specific Site Development Plan SDP 88-4. Potential circulati impacts due to the addition of another car dealership on the 1 have been addressed in modification of circulation patterns f the .site.
1
-7-
0
IV. DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
,&-I find.the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on *. ; the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. .. - I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. pg J& " I -26 -04 *w
Date Sianature
I I wlgq
\ I\ # ~~~
bate . ~ ~ ~~ P
V.MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable)
-a-
... .