From: Rob Taylor Sent: “Thursday, April 21, 2016 11:59 AM To: Keith McKinley ce Jody Livingston Subject: RE: JIM FREEZE STORAGE AMID CAR WASH. Keith, CEQA applies to activites that may cause ether a direct physical change inthe environment, oF a reasonably foresessh {ndirect physical change inthe environment. When examining an activity to determine whether itcould affect the jphvsical environment, an agency must consider the entire activity that fs the subject ofits approval, not some Fiecemealed version of the proect. Bozung v. LAFCO (1975) 13 Cal 3é 263, 283. So the City must take @ holistic view the project when determining whether an exemption applies. “The activity here is elthera mini storage center ora mini storage/car wash. There is some ambiguity in the descrip af the activity, but either way it appears tobe a project and the ity must determine whether an exemption app ‘on reviewing the materials you provided, no such exemption appears to appl inthis case. Your Judgment is opt ‘exemption found in Section 15332 requires zoning consistency and adequate service by all requited utilities and pl Serices, Here, the storage activity is not an allowed use or conditional use in the zone, and based on your epresentation, water pressure is inadequate for pubic safety a this time regardless of whether the activity is jus thin storage ora mini storage/car wash. Moreover, like to point out that subsection (d) of Section 15332 re finding of no significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. Here, there may very well = noise, air quality, or water quality issues associated with the proposed activity, and | leave it to the City to look in issue. In any event, this project does not appear to fall into an exemption and CEQA compliance will need to be demonstrated, if you wish to discuss further, please fel fee to cal ROB TAYLOR | KENNY, SNOWDEN & NORINE | 2701 PARK MARINA DR. | REDDING, CA ‘96001 | T: 530.225.8990 |’ F: 530.225.8944 | rtaylor@lawksn.com From: Keith McKinley (malto:kmckinley@mtshastace.gov) ‘Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 11:02 AM ‘To: Rob Taylor Subject: JIM FREEZE STORAGE AMND CAR WASH. ‘As we discussed, an Applicant, jim Freeze Is proposing a mini-storage project ina parcel zoned C-2. The project has also been discussed to include a self-serve car wash, but now the applicant isnot committing to that. ‘The use “mini-storage” i not listed as an allowed use in that zone, nor iit listed asa use allowed with a conditional use permit. ‘The use isa use by right in the Employment Center zone. Or very very similar. | did however, out of being “reasonable entertained the idea of allowing it witha use permit only because the use is not ‘expressly allowed in any zone.“Zoning The sit is located in an ares of town witn know water pressure issues and essentially the pressure is inadequate for public safety at this time. There is however plane in the works that may remedy the lzue But that isin the future, not toy, Te applicant asserts that this project i EXEMPT from CEQA pursuant to 15332 ofthe CEQA guideline = particular exemption implies that certain findings or conlitions need to be presen. . One is zoning consistency. ‘And another s tha the site is adequately served by public utilities. ‘The applicant bull dzed the site without grading permits ora SWPPP. The applicant was cted by the city. Fm not aware ‘the RWACE visited the site or issued a violation natice, but they indicated they were thinking of i im teling them the projects not exempt fom CEQA under that exemption since those required findings are not jorted by evidence onthe record — Rte. doesn't commit tot now, but thas been widely know that this application might be coming inthe future. He submitted Aan erallto us that stateshis assertion “CEQA- We understand the importance in comphing wth CEQA requirements. However, as you know, our codes and standards have exceptions in place so a8 to allow projects that do qualify to be found exempt, this ultimately leads to a more efficient process. Itis with this in mind we propose ths project does meet CEOA Guidelines, Article 18.95.060 ‘Application Procedures, (E) Categorical Exceptions, 6} Clas 32 Infill Development Projects because _ 2s follows ‘a. The General Plan shows the site being designated (CC, ths project will have less ofan impact than those allowed. “The process of approving the ‘the "Permitted use” noted above by deduction implies the projects closely within the zoning designation and regulations. ‘b. The site meets the requirement. «The site meets the requirement, no indication 4d. The periodic use by renters to their storage uits would not significantly impact traffic, noise, air quality or water walt. fe. We were told the Lake Water Line Replacement Project and the completion ofthe remaining work onthe Supply Line Replacement Project is ‘scheduled forthe summer which would meet the completion time line ofthis project. We have had preliminary discussions with Pacific Power to determine there is adequate power available for such projects.” The assertion regarding the car wash i s follows: New Car 24 Hour Wash: Keith, we take the same postion as described above for this the project as well. \We are in agreement to include the Car Wash Project in these early processes and appreciate your clarification, We will bbe doing son the future. * ‘So, this project that could include a car was I believe the project i. and challenge the ‘requirement ofa use permit as shown below: Zoning: The C-2 (General Commercial) per Table 9 of “Development Standards by Zone” (9.5) Permitted Uses, (C- “Land uses whieh conform to the purposed ofthe District and which inthe judgment ofthe Planner are consistent with the purpose of the District. You stated several times the project is _ suitable for zoning with the understanding if done right and with alt of screening and treatments of the buildings..." Since we can define the project 5 "Permitted use" a Conditional Use Permit would not be required. In addition there are other existing Businesses 10 theythe south (ie Suburban Propane, Mt. Shasta Animal Hospital) that certainly are similar and more nosy than this ‘roject. Did these projects require Use Permits?” [My statement to the applicant was a follows: “Zoning “The parcel is Zoned C-2. Self Storage isnot a use that is expressly allowed In that zone. Self Storage, nor car wash, is listed as an alowed use. However a relative listing is warehousing and that is listed in the EC zone asa use by right. ‘There are sites in town that are “grandfathered:in” for self storage. believe, however, done right and with alt of screening and treatments tothe buildings, that self storage can be placed in many places. But keepin mind that placement must ensure compatibility and mitigated visual impacts. ‘The 24-hour car wash project has the same issues however | believe the use is similar to those fora conditional use ‘there. | would recommend that without expressed rues fr the sel storage in this location similar to those already sited, yet not a use by right asi isin the EC zone but could work under certain circumstances, s0 | believe the project might be able tobe reviewed and approved if there isan application for a use permit.” | have not really made that call defintely, and might Just inicate that | wont make that call but the planning ‘commission can, It seems like an interpretation isue. ‘Anyway, Fve attached the application materials. |sit exempt from CEQA? The applicant thinks the self storage Is, AND that the car wash i. butI detect he's separating ‘the two ands piece-mealin the two projects and stil thinking the entie project is exempt unde infill exemption, ‘Aso, | think if the planner is wilng to use that similar use determination, but fora use permit, do not believe that ‘means itis clearly consistent withthe zoning code. Is it? ‘Anyway, 'm attaching the application information. | need the input from you regarding these isues, primarily it all revolves around the CEQA issue. Thank you Keith