HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-11-02; Planning Commission; Resolution 37170 e
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. 3717
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO DEMOLISH ONE EXISTING
FUEL ISLAND AND CANOPY AND CONVERT THE
EXISTING SERVICES BAYS TO A NEW COMBINATION
CONVENIENCE MARKETICAR WASH ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED AT WE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE AND PI0 PIC0 DRIVE.
CASE NAME: SHELL OIL
CASE NO: CUP 94-01
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 2nd day of November, 1994
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 testimony an
arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, ant
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factor!
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commissior
as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to Exhibif
”ND”, dated September 2, 1994, and “PII”, dated August 15, 1994, attached
hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings :
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a
significant impact on the environment.
2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environmental analysis.
3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed project.
4. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significantly
impacted by this project.
~
I1 .I e
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
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Plannir
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of November, 1994, by d
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Savary, Commissioners Noble, Erwin, Compa
Nielsen and Monroy.
NOES: commissioner Welshons.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ATTEST:
W MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
PLANNING DIRECTOR
+
PC RES0 NO. 3717 -2-
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Southwest comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and Pi0 Pic0
Drive, in Local Facilities Management Zone 1, in the
City of Carlsbad, County 'of San Diego, State of
California.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Addition of a 738 square foot automatic self-service car wash,
removal of the existing service bays and the remodel of the
existing building to include a convenience store with new
exterior and interior finishes.
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
21 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Tem Woods in the
, Planning Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4447.
DATED: SEPTEMBER 2, 1994
CASE NO: CUP 94-01
4 MICHAEL J. HOLZPS~~LLER
Planning Director
CASE NAME: SHELL OIL COMPANY
PUBLISH DATE: SEPTEMBER 2, 1994
W:vd
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-1 161 e
0 e
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CUP 94-01
DATE: August 15, 1994
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Shell Oil ComDany
2. APPLICANT: Shell Oil Company/Tait & Associates
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT:
Tait & Associates Shell Oil CoDanv
Ruffin Rd. Ste 230 511 N Brookhurst
San Diego, CA 92123 Anaheim, CA 92803
(619) 278-1 161 (714) 520-3376
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: January 27, 1994
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Addition of a 738 square foot automatic self-service car was'
removal of the existing service bays and the remodel of the existing building to includt
convenience store with new exterior and interior finishes.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct
Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environme
The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. T
checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed projl
and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmen
Impact Report or Negative Declaration.
* A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project
any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will be check
to indicate this determination.
* An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of 1
project may cause a simificant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negat
Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deerr
insinnificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings "YES-sig" and YES-ins
respectively.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form unc
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL, EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discuss:
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
e e
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
1. Result in unstable earth conditions or
increase the exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards?
YES
(sig)
2. Appreciably change the topography or any
unique physical features?
3. Result in or be affected by erosion of soils
either on or off the site?
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
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 course 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 significant archeological,
paleontological or historical site,
structure or object?
-
-
-
-2 -
YES (insig)
-
NO
X
X
X
X
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
0 e
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES
big)
12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, 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
or other farmland of state or local
importance?
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?
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES
(si&
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 NO (insig)
X
X
X
X
X
YES NO (insig)
X
X
0 e
HUMAN 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?
YES
(sig)
-
-.
-
.4-
YES
(insig)
X
X
X
X
NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0 0
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO
big) (insig)
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?
v - A
X
- X -
X -
-5-
0 e
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Proiect Description
Remodel of an existing auto repair service type gas station and addition of a 738 square foot automatic se
service car wash. The remodel will include the conversion of the existing service bay to a convenience sto
and will include the removal of one set of fuel pumps and associated canopy located parallel to Pi0 Pi'
Drive. The adjacent uses include City of Carlsbad City Hall to the north, general office and commercial us
to the east, the 1-5 freeway to' the west and a City-owned park (Oak Park) to the south.
Physical Environment
1,2. The lots were previously graded and developed. A level pad area is located in the central portion
the property. The property slopes east to west across the lot. No grading of the site is proposed as pi
of this project and there are no unique physical features on the site.
3. The entire site will be covered with paving, building foundation, and landscaped planters, therefo~
onsite erosion of exposed soils will not result. Drainage and erosion control facilities (duri
construction phase) will be incorporated into the project by condition of approval and the project u
be required to meet all City Engineering standards and policies, therefore significant erosion a:
drainage impacts will not result.
4,7. The project is not adjacent to a river, stream, lake or major body of water and therefore, the projf
drainage will not impact the deposition of beach sand or modify water features.
5. The effects of the project on air quality are minimal. The gas station is an existing use on the si
Further, one of the gas pumps will be removed. Therefore, additional cumulative impacts are minim'
Cumulative effects of controlled emissions have gone beyond the acceptable level in the region. 1
quality is a regional issue as the San Diego Basin is a non-attainment basin for air quality.
6. The site is relatively small (0.65 acres) and contains an existing gas station with service ba;
therefore, onsite physical conditions will not be drastically altered and impacts to air moveme]
moisture, and temperature will be minimal. The fuel dispensing nozzles are required to contain vap
recovery systems and these have already been installed in the existing gas station, thus reducing t
impacts of odor.
8. The proposed car wash contains a water recycling system with eventual discharge into the sewa
system. Approval of the project will be conditioned with the requirement to obtain any necess;
permits for waste water discharge. The project will also be conditioned to comply with all NatioI
Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) requirements. The site is currently develop(
therefore, the new car wash and convenience store will not significantly increase the cumulative impac
created by urban runoff into surrounding man-made and natural drainage facilities.
9,lO The project is very small in scale, covering only .65 acres, therefore during the construction phase t
usage of natural resources will be insignificant. The gas station is a service use and will not consu~
substantial amounts of fuel or energy.
-6-
0 0
11. The project site has been previously graded and developed with gas station and service bays, therefo
sigmficant impacts to archeological or paleontological resources is not anticipated.
Biolonical Environment
12-16 The project site has been previously graded and developed with a gas station with service ba The project site is surrounded by development including the Carlsbad City Hall IO the norih, offi
to the east, Interstate-5 to the west and a City owned park (Oak Park) to the south. Therefore,
significant negative impacts to biological resources or animal travel and migration are anticipa
from this project. The site contains no natural plant or animal habitats or species.
Human Environment
17. The site is designated for Travel Service land uses on the General Plan Land Use Map and the propo
use is consistent with this designation.
18. The project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning and will be conditioned to comply with
requirements of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1. As a result of the proje
conformance with adopted land use and facility plan, it will not significantly impact public facilit
The adopted Facilities Management Plan assures that all public facilities will be in place prior
development.
19. The project will be required to comply with any water pollution control requirements, solid wi
disposal requirements and NPDES requirements limiting impacts to solid, sewage, and hazardous wi
systems.
20. The self-service car wash will increase noise levels on the site but will not significantly imF
surrounding land uses or significantly increase the ambient noise levels of the area. The projec
located adjacent to a freeway off-ramp and the intersection of two roadways, one of which i
circulation element roadway (Carlsbad Village Drive), The freeway and Carlsbad Village Drive gener
high levels of noise. The Ryko Model R7B Ultra Clean with Thrust Pro Dryer with noise reduct
package generates noise in the range of 68.7 to 69.0 dBA Leq during the drying cycle (measured at
feet from the entrance and exit of the car wash). Noise in the range of 70 to 75 dBA CNEI
equivalent to average street noise or a radio. Therefore, the ambient noise levels on the site will
above the noise level generated by the car wash. The only sensitive land use in the area is the (
owned park located adjacent to this site (to the south) approximately 60 feet from the entrance of
car wash. As mitigated, the noise generated by the dryers of the car wash will be at or below
ambient noise levels at the southern property line of the site adjacent to the park.
21. The existing gas station contains two separate gas fueling areas with canopies. The single gas pu
area and canopy along Pi0 Pic0 Drive will be removed as part of the improvements of the site.
designed, the project will not incrementally add light and glare to the surrounding environment. '
canopy that covers the fueling area will screen light downward and prevent light from spilling outw
or upward, thus reducing impacts to surrounding parcels.
22. Storage of gasoline will occur on the site. This storage will be required to meet all City, State, ;
Federal laws regarding storage of hazardous materials. The release of these hazardous material!
-7-
0 0
surface level will be prevented through the use of a delivery system that prevents large surface sp
and an oil/grease separator to prevent surface runoff from containing any petroleum products pursu:
to all NPDES requirements. The on-site specially lined and coated underground gasoline tanks v
prevent stored gasoline from leaking into the surrounding groundwater system. These tanks i
designed to prevent deterioration of the tank from the solvent action of the gasoline and the corros
action of the surrounding soil and its associated moisture.
23,24 The proposed land use is commercial service, therefore the project will not substantially alter 1
density of the human population in the area or substantially effect housing. The gas station alrez
exists and the new development results in a minor intensification of the site's land use, resulti
in an insignificant change in employment and subsequent demand for housing.
25,27,29 The project (with four gas pumps, mini-market, and car wash) will generate an estimated 12
Average Daily Trips (ADT) which is less than the 1560 ADT generated by the existing use with
gas pumps and three service bays. As the use will generate less traffic, no signific
circulation/traffic impacts are anticipated from project implementation.
26. The project complies with the City's Parking Ordinance and has twelve parking spaces (nine requirl
onsite, therefore the project will not affect existing parking facilities or create a large demand for n
offsite parking.
28. The project will have no effect on waterborne, rail or air traffic.
30. The project will not interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. 1
traffic projection for the site indicates that 1240 ADT are anticipate for the use. This is a decrease fr
the existing traffic generated by the service station (1560 ADT) and thus will not significantly imp
traffic circulation on Carlsbad Village Drive or Pi0 Pic0 Drive. Traffic circulation and access will
adequate to handle the traffic demand, therefore, adequate emergency access and evacuation of the :
is anticipated.
31. The project will not obstruct scenic vistas and the approved building elevations, materials, I
architecture will not create an aesthetically offensive public view. Extensive site plan review of
project by the Planning Department will ensure that the improvements are compatible with
surrounding neighborhood and comply with all City ordinances and policies. Conditions of appro
for the site plan will require landscaping to enhance the visual aesthetics of the development 2
provide some visual screening of the building and driveways.
32. The project will not adversely affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities.
Mandatory Findings of Significance
33. The site was previously graded and developed with gas station uses. The site is surrounded by urE
development on three sides and a small City park on one side. The park is well screened by trees 1
the park site) from the subject site. As a result of the existing site conditions, the project will not h;
an impact on biological or cultural resources.
-8-
e 0
34,35 The additional intensification of the land use from a gas station with service bays to a gas statil
with self-service car wash and convenience market will not create substantial additional cumulati
impacts, nor effect longer term environmental goals. The land use is planned for in the Gene:
Plan and is consistent with the zoning (with a conditional use permit), both of which are tools u2
to balance the City's long range environmental goals with its physical development goals.
36. ' Noise, fuel dispensing hazards, and additional traffic circulation and safety concerns have be
identified and considered in this evaluation and it has been determined that the project will not cal
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
-9-
0 0
ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 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) alternate sites for the proposed project, and
g) no project alternative.
a) The small size of the project and the nature of the land use prohibits the use of development phasil
b) This project has been redesigned to improve site circulation and reduce traffic impacts. This was dc
by closing two of the driveways on Pi0 Pic0 Drive leaving one driveway which was moved farther au
from the intersection of Carlsbad Village Drive and Pi0 Pic0 Drive. Further one of the gasoline pun
and canopy has been removed to improve circulation on the site.
c) Elimination of the car wash or convenience store would reduce the Average Daily Trips, reduce 1
onsite traffic demand and create a less intensely developed site.
d) The gas statiordcar wash/convenience market is consistent with the planned land use for the site a
alternative uses' for the property would consist of similar traffic generating uses such as drive
restaurants, hotels and commercial services.
e) The site is currently developed with a similar type of land use (gas statiodauto service).
f) Corner lots with adequate lot acreage for on-site circulation located on major circulation elemc
roadways, with no adjacent residential uses would be appropriate alternative sites. This site meets 1
above criteria.
g) The no project alternative would have minimal benefit in this evaluation due to a similar use alrez
existing on the site (gas station with service bays). The remodeled gas station with new convenier
store and car wash would enhance the site with improved architecture, increased landscaping, improl
traffic circulation by the closing of two driveways and the removal of one fuel service island, a
rehabilitation and enhancement of other on-site improvements.
-10-
e e
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, and a NEGATn
DECLARATION will be prepared.
- I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, because tl environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction wi
previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is require
Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared.
- I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there M
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached she
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 ENVIRONMENT,
IMPACT REPORT is required.
8 -3c - 94 LA LJ.3"
Date Signature
&o/+f-
Date'
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM [IF APPLICABLE]
-11-
9 1)
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
TW:vd
K:WMIN\MERGE\DOC\EIAPT2.1
-1 2-