HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-08-05; Planning Commission; Resolution 4335L
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
0 0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO 4335
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADDENDUM TO ALLOW
A CHEVRON GAS STATION AND FOOD MART ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 970 TAMARACK AVENUE IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
CASE NO.: CUP 98-03
WHEREAS, Chevron Products Company, “Developer”, has filed a
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Chevron PI
Company, “Owner”, described as:
Parcel 1 Parcel Map No. 207, in the City of Carlsbad, County of Sar
Diego, State of California, filed in the office of the County Recorder 0:
San Diego County, February 20, 1970 as File No. 31911 of officia
records.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 5th day of August, 19!
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all te:
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by st
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the P
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the P
Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to
”ND” dated June 8, 1998 and addendum, and “PII” dated April 26
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
0 0
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 I
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures or
alternatives identified in the MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to this Su.
Project have been incorporated into this Project.
2. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analy
considered the Negative Declaration dated June 8, 1998, and addendum,
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and said comments thl
file in the Planning Department, prior to APPROVING the project. Based on
Part I1 and comments thereon, the Planning Commission finds that the1
substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environr
hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration.
3. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Negative Declarati
addendum, has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the C
Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental P
Procedures of the City of Carlsbad.
4. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration dated June 8, I!
addendum, reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of
of Carlsbad.
....
....
....
....
....
I ....
PC RES0 NO. 4335 -2-
,
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
e 0
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 5th day of August, 199;
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners Compas, Heineman, I\
Savary, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Monroy
'" , c, <,I
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 4335 -3 -
e .*
- City of Carlsba(
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: 970 Tamarack Avenue
Project Description: A conditional use permit to allow the demolition of the exist
Chevron service station located at the corner of Tamarack Ave
and Pi0 Pic0 in the C-1 zone and the construction of a r
Chevron gas station with four gas islands, a canopy, and food n
on the same site.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described pro
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said revie1
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 Planr
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of (
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Departmer
(760) 438-1 161, extension 4477.
DATED: JUNE 8,1998
CASE NO: CUP 98-03
CASE NAME: CHEVRON SERVICE STATION c
PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 8,1998 I,"&& M~CHAEL J. MLZMS~LER
Planning Director
___ ."". -.-.
2075 La Palmas Dr. - Carfsbad, CA 92009-7 576 * (760) 438-1 161 - FAX (760) 438-1
" "" . . . - -. " "_""_"____"_"-. -
e 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASENO: CUP 98-02
DATE: April 26, 1998
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
2. APPLICANT: RFA, INC.
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2050 Santa Cruz Street, #2100
Anaheim, CA 92805
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: January 29.1998
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A conditional use permit to allow the demolition of the existing
Chevron service station located at the corner of Tamarack Avenue and Pi0 Pic0 in the C-
1 zone and the construction of a new Chevron gas station with four gas islands, a canopy
and food mart on the same site.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning 0 TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water Hazards Cultural Resources
0 Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
e e
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
B I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on tht
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
c] 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 NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ar
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but a1
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlie1
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Negative
Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
0 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 all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Negative Declaration
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
4M9r Date
.
6/Zj&3 Planning Direct&% Sigddure Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
I a 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the Cit,
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significan
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and huma
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information ta
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
e A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that arc
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following eacl
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced informatior
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. P
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, 0:
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
e “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the+impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
e ”Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporatior
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to s
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and tht
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
e “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
e Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significanl
effect on the environment, but 4 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 Mitigatea
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).
e 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.
e 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. 03/28/96
0 a
a If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing a
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, anc
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In thi
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant, Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
a An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and includini
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect ha:
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, anc
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less tha
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact ha
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduci
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part. I1 analysis it is no.
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, 0:
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significan
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of thc
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attenti01
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be detenninec
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
L 0 e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (Source #1) CI urn
b) Conflict with. applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project?'(Sources #1,2)
cJ 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? (Not Applicable)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
0 0
0 0
0 0
[XI
0 !XI
0 IXI
w
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (Not Applicable) 0 0
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an 0 cl
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (Infill area)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (Not Applicable) 0 0
0 IXI
0 IXI
o [XI
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (Source #1)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (Source #1)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Source #1)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (Source #1)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
0 0 (XI 0 0 O w
0 0 0 El 0 0 w
(Source #1) 0 O w
conditions from excavation, grading, or 0 0 0 IXI
fill?(Source #3)
g) Subsidence of the land? (Source #3)
h) Expansive soils? (Source #3)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (Source #3)
0 0 0 El 0 0 o w 0 0 o w
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
the rate and amount of surface runoff?
hazards such as flooding? 0 w
0 0 cl !zl
5 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)? (Source #1)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? (Source #1)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements? (Source #1)
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? (Source # 1)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(Source #I)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Source #1,3)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies? (Source #1)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (Source
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Source
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
d) Create objectionable odors? (Source #1)
#1)
#1>
cause any change in climate? (Source #I)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
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? (Not
applicable)
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, animals, and birds? (Not applicable)
6
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
El
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impact
Mitigation Incorporated
Unless Impact
0 0 IXI
17 0 IXI
0 0 Kl
0 0 IXI
0 0 w
0 0 €3 0 0 w
0 0 0
0 o w
0 0 IXI
0 CI Kl
0 0 [XI 0 0 [XI
0 0 [x1
0 0 El 0 0 IXI 17 0 [XI
0 0 €4
0 IXI
Rev. 03/28/96
0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(Not applicable)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Not Applicable)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)? (Not Applicable)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (Not
Applicable)
0 o
0
0
Vlll. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(Source #1) 0
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (Source #1) 0
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value to 0
the region and the residents of the State? (Source
#1>
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? (Source #1)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazards?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards?
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees?
0
0 o
0
0
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? )
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 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? (Source #1)
b) Police protection? (Source #1)
c) Schools? (Source #1)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services? (Source #1)
(Source #1)
0 0 0 0
0
7
e
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
0 w
O w
0 w
O w
o [XI o w
0 w
[XI 0
o w w o w
0 w
o w 0 (XI
0 w o w o w 17 w
O w
Rev. 03/28/96
I e 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
XII. UTILITIES 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? (Source #I) 0 b) Communications systems? (Source #1)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (Source #I) 0
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
0 0 €3 0 c3 IXI 0 0 IXI
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Source #4)
e) Storm water drainage? (Source #4)
f) Solid waste disposal? (Source #I)
0 0 0 El O €3 0 cl 0 w g) Local or regional water supplies? (Source #1) 0 0 0 IXI
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (Source
b) Have a demonstrate 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? (Source #1)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
(Source #1)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (Source #1)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (Source
parks or other recreational facilities? (Source #1)
#1>
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
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?
0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0 IXI
CI IXI 0 IB
0 w 0 w CI w O w
o w
0 IXI
0 w
0 w
8 Rev. 03/28/96
0 e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? CI 0 0 Ix1
(“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 0 0 €3
beings, either directly or indirectly?
XVII . EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQP
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negativc
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identifl thc
following on attached sheets:
a) , Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are availablc
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklis
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuan
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed b!
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigatiol
Incorporated,“ describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated o
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site
specific conditions for the project.
9 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. Land Use and Planning: The project consists of the demolition of an existing gas statio:
with service bays and the construction of a new gas station and food mart on the same sitc
The surrounding commercial uses and church to the east have hctioned for many year
without any major compatibility problems.
IV. Water: No changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or surface runoff are anticipated il
that the site will be redeveloped with another gas station which is very similar to existin;
conditions. Landscape coverage of the site will be increased through installation of planter
around the food mart structure.
V. Air Quality: Implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included i
the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumptio
and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbo
monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates
These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the Sa
Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additiona
air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development tc
buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impact
on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variet
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provision
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measure
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demanc
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mas:
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5’
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable an(
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into thc
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project i
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is market
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, thc
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by CiQ
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations’’ for ail
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequen
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, nc
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at thc
Planning Department.
VI. Circulation: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with an(
included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes
Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full anc
2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which tht
City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas anc
major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway
10 Rev. 03/28/96
. 0 0
improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growtl:
Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerou!
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include 1’
measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions tl
develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks
pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulatior
strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate 01
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City tc
control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have eithe
been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of tht
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, 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 thc
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 Oj
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’:
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulatior
impacts is required.
VII. Biological Resources: The project site is currently developed and contains no natura
vegetation or wetland resources.
XI. Hazards: Compliance with the California Health and Safety Code and Rule 20 of the Ai1
Pollution Control District Rules and Regulations as stated in the required regulatory
permits for the construction and operation of a gasoline dispensing facility will reduce the
risk of explosion and release of hazardous substances to a level of insignificance.
X. Noise: Noise levels should not increase over existing conditions in that the gas station anc
food mart use is similar to the existing service station with service bays now occupying
the site.
XI. Aesthetics: The demolition of the existing service station with a new structure, paving,
and signage, and landscaping will improve the physical appearance of the site. A lighting
plan which ensures that lighting will be directed downward to avoid spillage onto adjacent
properties will avoid additional light and glare.
SOURCE DOCUMENTS - (NOTE: All source documents are on file in the Planning
Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009, Phone (760) 438-1161.
1. MEIR - 1994 General Plan Update of the Carlsbad General Plan.
2. City of Carlsbad General Plan adopted September 6,1994.
3. “Geotechnical Investigation - Service Station 9-3320 Reconstruction” dated January
4. “Water Quality Management Plan - Chevron SS #9-3320” prepared by RFA, Inc.
9,1998 prepared by BACA Asociates, Inc.
dated March 30,1998.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
A
4 e e
ADDENDUM TO NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR
CUP 98-03 - CHEVRON SERVICE STATION
The proposed project, which consists of the replacement of an existing gas station and servic,
bays with a gas station and mini mart would result in a minor increase of 160 average daily trip!
(ADT) for a total of 1,200. The project is consistent with existing General Plan and zont
designations which allow commercial uses. Future traffic generation at this location b]
permitted commercial uses could potentially range between 1,000 and 2,000 ADT. The stree
system serving the project includes Tamarack Avenue, a secondary circulation arterial, whiclr
currently operates at an acceptable level of service (LOS). The proposed additional trips woulc
not significantly reduce the LOS for this roadway. Therefore, the proposed minor increase i~
traffic would not result in a significant impact and no mitigation would be necessary.