Loading...
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.