Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-03-15; Planning Commission; Resolution 4737a, 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4737 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO ALLOW A SERVICE STATION, CAR WASH AND FOOD MART ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST SIDE OF AVENIDA ENCINAS, SOUTH OF POINSETTIA LANE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 9. CASE NAME: CHEVRON POINSETTIA VILLAGE CASE NO.: SDP 82-03(B)/CUP 99-15/CDP 99-35 9 10 11 WHEREAS, K. B. Narain, “Developer”, has filed a verified application with t City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Donahue Schriber Realty Group, L. P. a1 12 13 14 15 16 Poinsettia Associates, “Owners”, described as Parcel 11 of Parcel Map No. 15187, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, March 28, 1988, Recorder’s File No. 88-140044 (“the Property”); and 17 1 g Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring a1 19 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of March, 2000, hc 2o a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 21 I( WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimo 22 II I/ and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, a 23 24 25 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planni 26 relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Commission as follows: 27 considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all fact( 28 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 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 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Plannil Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Mitigated Negati Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program according Exhibit "ND" dated February 4,2000, and "PII" dated January 3,2000, attach hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: FindinPs: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: A. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered Mitigated Negative Declaratic 35, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and 8 comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; a B. the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance wj requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelin and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and C. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City CHEVRON POINSETTIA VILLAGE - SDP 82-03(B)/CUP 99-15/CDP 9 Carlsbad; and \ D. based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial eviden the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Conditions: 1. Developer shall implement or cause the implementation of the Chevron Poinsetl Village Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 11 PC RES0 NO. 4737 -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 1 e 0 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planni Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of March 2000, by t following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Heineman, Nielsen, Segall and Trigas NOES: Commissioners L’Heureux and Welshons ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: ., MICHAEL J. HOLZMIMR Planning Director ~ PC RES0 NO. 4737 -3- ___ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project AddresdLocation: APN 214-430-23 Parcel 11 of Parcel Map No. 15 187 filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, March 28, 1988, Recorder’s File No. 88-140044 Project Description: Service station, car wash and 2,100 sq. ft. food mart located on a vacant 1.14 acre pre-graded pad within the Poinsettia Village Shopping Center 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, the initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment - would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Barbara Kennedy in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4626. DATED: FEBRUARY 4,2000 CASE NO: SDP 82-03(B)/CUP 99-15/CDP 99-35 CASE NAME: CHEVRON POINSETTIA VILLAGE PUBLISH DATE: FEBRUARY 4,2000 Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 - (760) 602-4600 - FAX (760) 602-8559 ( 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: SDP82-03B/CUP 99-15/CDP 99-35 DATE: 1/3/00 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Chevron Poinsettia Village 2. APPLICANT: K. B. Narain 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: P. 0. Box 1918, Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: August 5,1999 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Service station, car wash, and 2,100 sauare foot food mart. 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. c] Land Use and Planning TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services 0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems Geological Problems 17 Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics Water Hazards 0 Cultural Resources Air Quality H Noise [7 Recreation III] Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03128196 0 0 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. IXI 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 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. - u I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A 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 have been analyzed adequately in an earlier environmental review, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. WA-7 31 kAyLCcW 2 000 Plahner Signature I Date 0 211 100 fI Date 2 Rev. 03128196 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant 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 human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to 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 are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or 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 incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the 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 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but a 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 Mitigated 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. 03i28i96 0 0 e If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. 0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 4 Rev. 03128/96 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) c) 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? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-) (#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) 0 0 0 o I7 0 0 0 0 0 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 0 o b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area 0 0 or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 0 0 5.5-6) 111. a> b) c) d) e) f) s) h) 9 GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#1 :Pgs Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#1 :Pgs 5.1-1 - Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs 0 0 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; Source #3) Subsidence ofthe land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) n n 0 0 0 0 5.1-1 - 5.1.15) 0 0 5.1-15) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) E i IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2- b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 0 0 c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved 0 17 oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 0 0 1 1) 5 Less Than No Significant Impact Impact ow ow ow OH ON ow nw ow ow ow ow ow ow OH ow ow om UKI ow ow Rev. 03128196 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 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? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2- 1 1 : Source #4) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs body? (#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) (#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 0 0 [I] 0 0 V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3- b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) 1 - 5.3-12) - 5.3-12) VI. a) b) c) d) e) f) 8) TRANSPORTATIONKIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) IXI 0 0 0 [XI 0 0 0 0 0 0 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? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) 0 17 I7 6 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than No Significant Impact Impact OH LIB om UBI !x0 ow on n[xI ow ow on ow ow OH om nlzl om ow OH OBI Rev. 03128196 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) 0 - 5.4-24) 0 VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and proposal? (#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 0 inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13- 0 c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and 0 the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 1 - 5.13-9) & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 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)? (#1 :Pgs 5.10.1 - 1 - 5.10.1-5; Source #4)) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5: Source #4) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) 0 0 0 0 X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9- b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#1 :Pgs 5.9- 15: and Source #2) 0 1 - 5.9-15; and Source #2) 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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6) b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4) c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1, e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 0 0 Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) 5.12.8-7) 0 XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: 7 e Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated Unless Impact 0 ow 0 OH ow ow 0 ow 0 0 mu om o wn El ow 0 ow w 00 0 nIxI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [XI [XI 0 OB Rev. 03128196 e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & b) Communications systems? (#l; Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8- c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7) e) Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8) f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3) g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 0 7) 0 facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) 0 0 0 0 5.12.3-7) 0 XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5) 5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5) 5.11-1 - 5.11-5) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the 10) 1 0) 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7,) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) 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 Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated Unless Impact I7 0 0 OH nw ow 0 0 0 0 o 17 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 17 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI [x1 El w ow OH OH OBI OH ow ow UIXI UIXI OH OH 8 Rev. 03/28/96 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“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 beings, either directly or indirectly? 0 Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact - Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 ow 0 0 OH 9 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions for the project. 10 Rev. 03128196 0 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The proposal is for the development of a gas station, car wash, and mini mart on an existing pre- graded pad within the Poinsettia Village Shopping Center. The 1.14 acre site is located on the northeast side of Avenida Encinas, south of Poinsettia Lane. The project is surrounded by two vacant pads to the north and south. Parking areas and retaiychurch uses are located to the east with 1-5 beyond and Lakeshore Gardens Mobile Home Park is located beyond Avenida Encinas to the west. The gas station will include 12 pump stations, a 2,132 square foot food mart, and an 884 square foot car wash. The proposed hours of operation for the gas station and mini-mart will be from 6:OO am to 11:OO pm. The proposed car wash will be open from 6:OO am until 8:OO pm. The area is located within the newly established CommercialNisitor-Serving Overlay Zone and will require a Coastal Development Permit, Site Development Plan Amendment and Conditional Use Permit. 11 Rev. 03128196 0 11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS B. Environmental Impact Discussion I. Land Use and Planning The site is zoned C-2-Q (General Commercial/Qualified Overlay Zone) with a General Plan Land Use Designation of T-WC (Travemecreation CornmercialKommunity Commercial) and a gas statiodcar wasldmini mart is permitted with the approval of a conditional use permit. There will be no conflicts with applicable environmental plans or policies that are under the jurisdiction of any resource or regulatory agency. The site is a vacant pre-graded pad within an existing shopping center which was planned for development of a gas station. The addition of the car wash and food mart will require an amendment to the Site Development Plan (SDP 82-03B). 11. Population and Housing The project will not impact or affect population patterns, projections or affordable housing provisions. 111. Geologic Problems The project is proposed on a pre-graded pad which was graded in accordance with City standards through the issuance of a grading permit in 1984 in conjunction with the mass grading for the Poinsettia Village Shopping Center. The proposed development will require minor grading of approximately 250 cubic yards of cut and 200 cubic yards of fill, with 50 cubic yards of export. The proposed building pad elevations are at the level of the existing graded pad which is about 3.5 feet above Avenida Encinas. The site is free of any known or documented seismic, or geologic instabilities. No landslides, faultlines or soils with expansive or unstable properties are found on-site. IV. Water The project will result in increased surface runoff due to the addition of impervious surfaces required for the development of the structures and pavement areas. The fuel dispensing area will be designed to ensure clean storm water discharge from fuel dispensing areas and will minimize the potential for gasoline runoff. Development of the site will be required to comply with all applicable City regulations regarding drainage and runoff, including compliance with NPDES regulationshequirements and Best Management Practices. The development of the existing pad will not impact groundwater flow or quality; or change the flow of surface run-off; or impact public water supplies. The car wash will be designed to recycle 90% of the water used. V. Air Quality In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR which analyzed the impacts which will result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludes that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts in the form of increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. 12 Rev. 03128196 0 e These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan build-out, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a “non-attainment basin”, 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 the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR This document is available at the Planning Department. VI. TransportatiodCirculation The project site is part of the Poinsettia Village Shopping Center (SDP 82-03(A)) and was specified for development as a gas station. The site was analyzed in a traffic study prepared in September 1985 by Len Schatzmann, P.E. Subsequently, Urban Systems reviewed the proposed addition of a car wash and food mart to determine if an updated traffic analysis would be required due to changes in anticipated traffic. The report states an additional 25 trips per fueling station will be generated by the addition of the car wash and food mart. Based on 12 fueling stations as proposed, the project would result in an increase of 300 trips per day. On a peak hour basis the change would translate to 20 AM trips in and 20 trips out. During the PM peak about 23 new trips in and 23 out could be expected. Based on the Regional Traffic Impact Study Guidelines, this small increase in traffic is not significant enough to warrant a new traffic study for the proposed project. In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-out traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at build-out. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 13 Rev. 03128196 0 0 1) measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either 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 the failure of intersections at build-out 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 the 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 Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MER This document is available at the Planning Department. In addition, the City has received its annual Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Report. The Report has recorded an unanticipated intersection “level of service” (LOS) failure at Palomar Airport Road (PAR) and El Camino Real (ECR) during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. A mitigation measure has been identified which, if implemented, will bring the peak hours LOS into the acceptable range. The mitigation measure involves construction of two dual right turn lanes (northbound to eastbound and westbound to northbound). This project has agreed to a condition to pay its fair share of the intersection “short-term improvements” thereby guaranteeing mitigation to a level of insignificance. IX. Hazards Compliance with the California Health and Safety Code and Rule 20 of the Air 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. Engineering and Fire Department review of the project will ensure that typical safety features and provisions are designed into the project. X. Noise A noise assessment was prepared for the project to analyze the noise level forecast for the car wash and its impacts on the nearby sensitive land uses. Residences within the Lakeshore Gardens Mobile Home Park will be exposed to noise from the car wash operation, including the dryerhlower and vacuum, during the proposed hours of operation from 6:OO AM until 8:OO PM. In order to reduce these noise levels below a level of significance, a 9 foot high barrier (sound wall) will need to extend 15 feet out from the south end of the car wash. With the noise barrier in place, residences directly to the south of the car wash exit opening will experience worse case exterior noise levels of 52 dBA, which is below the City’s 55 dE3A exterior noise standard. Interior noise levels are not expected to exceed a worse case of 40 dl3A (in a windows open condition) which is below the City’s 45 CNEL interior noise standard. The noise wall will be located outside of the front setback area and has been designed so that it is architecturally compatible with the design of the car wash in that it appears as an architectural extension of the building. 14 Rev. 03128196 0 0 XII. Aesthetics The project will not negatively impact the scenic qualities of Interstate 5 or Avenida Encinas. The project has been designed to be architecturally compatible with the existing shopping center. Exterior lighting will be shielded to keep light and glare from spilling on to adjacent residential properties. In addition, the proposed black non-reflective concrete paving surface will further reduce the amount of light and glare of the service station. 15 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 111. EARLIER ANALYSES USED The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009, (760) 438-1161, extension 4447. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Pian Update (MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. 2. Noise Analysis for the Poinsettia Village Chevron Car Wash, dated July 7, 1999, prepared by Mestre Greve Associates. 3. Update Geotechnical Investipation Poinsettia Village Gas Station, Lot 11, dated April 6, 1999, prepared by URS Greiner Woodward Clyde. 4. Water Quality Management Plan, dated December 21, 1999, prepared by Western States Engineering & Construction. 16 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES 1. The Developer shall pay his fair share for the “short-term improvements” to the El Camino Real/ Palomar Airport Road intersection prior to issuance of a building permit. The amount shall be determined by the methodology ultimately selected by Council, including but not limited to, an increase in the city-wide traffic impact fee; an increased or new Zone 9 LFMP fee; the creation of a fee or assessment district; or incorporation into a Mello-Roos taxing district. 2. The Developer shall construct a noise barrier in accordance with the recommendations outlined in the Noise Assessment for Poinsettia Village Chevron Car Wash. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 17 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. 9//:2 b 0 /.,<:*,.. i .~ Date Signature 18 Rev. 03128196 ENVIRONMENTAL MIT&N MONITORING CHECKLISage 1 of 1 v) Q, 0) Q 0 v) 3 n \ %- h Q) Q 3 Y m 9 n n oj *. =cj &a o_ t n Z 0 0 m N co v) LYi :n =w zz WJ LLZ a m - - 5 m QI v) c 0 Q S .- CI CI .- 2 zi WE lii za an ~a kG 6: x 0 ZJ tyn aa 353 .F' E mcn .- -ma, m -00 uo 3Q €3 2 ,o .o a & .r z ZPa, $ €5 .r g ; + *-.I c '3 PO mE x2 .F a, r .e E LE2 p -t '5 abo, a .E - .- ,o v)$ E 5 o u, F %E 0 m5 0 .o, a, U-E v) 5 m= + om5 cz- UES 2 5u b Oz Ea 5 Qaj€ atif & 2 .- z., z n v,.rs,mcq 5.ESZ 2% sz CU-UCU E $2 c sa, Qg .=moa, 0 Eo FJ "a .- 0s .= v) a,u sa, EZa,O - con0 $ Qv) a,z= 2 €223 .spU c c a,W a, g E.o m.5 s n .z a,zg 5.gzm +'c +E;;; r a,c a,.!!?= FeSm 0.z v) + 0 - mgF > Q- .E Q+ L -x s 000 .= u > .- a, u .r 0 a, a,v) KEmg E:;% s s.G 3 ou o,o - Y v) ll II 4 IA L a, 0 5 d L c ae 56 - $g ._ 2: 8E a, -Q: gE Ed F a, u)= mm = .P mu) 0 g .r 5s 0 c 5" 2; u) 3 :e .E 0-4 93L gz $2 a, cp c a;; bas &E .- m L so 0 mu u) Em .- K'G II .- & rn K8 (0 ._ c= 8- L.G ._ m c >E L m 3 r 0 - .- g m u) c 0 = 8 0 ._ L E e n L 0 u) K 0 Q u) - $! 5 ._ 9.5 -5 - 2- is ijZg$ n.6 a, m Em22 8 8 II m go E 0 e- FLg s 8: g .P .p as mar E 5 II 5 - a, .e EEO WFH c a, u) c 0 .c *