HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 96-03; Unocal Gas Station & Car Wash; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (2)Citv of Carlsbad
storm Water Protection Program
May 19, 2006 Sent via Certified Mall
COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE
Lance Vollmer Jennifer Amaral
VoUmer Petroleum Inc. (Village 76 Gas and Car Wash) Conoco Phillips
880 Carlsbad Village Drive 3611 Harbor Blvd, Suite 200
Carlsbad, CA 92008 Santa Ana, Ca 92704
Re: Storm Water Pollution Prevention Compliance Schedule (SWP00844)
Dear Mr. Vollmer and Ms. Amaral:
This compliance schedule is in follow-up to the City of Carlsbad's May 17, 2006, compliance meeting with
Vollmer Petroleum and Williams Plumbing (contractor for Conoco Phillips). The purpose of the meeting was to
conduct a site evaluation and discuss storm water discharge violations associated with the Village 76 Gas and Car
Wash facility located at 880 Carlsbad Village Drive in Carlsbad, CA. In addition, City inspectors used this
opportunity to clarify the storm water requirements necessary to comply with the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC).
During the meeting the entire Village 76 Gas and Car Wash site was evaluated including the gas station, car wash
entrance and exit, drainage system, and outdoor areas. The following findings were made during the site visit:
• The perimeter drain that surrounds the lot discharges into a 1,500 gallon storage tank which is directly
connected to the storm drain system. All discharges from the site, including rainwater, flow into the tank
and are discharged untreated to the City's storm water conveyance system.
• Vehicles are regularly pre-washed at the entrance to the car wash. Although some wash water and soap
flow into the onsite clarifier, a significant amount of waste water flows away from the car wash bay to the
perimeter storm drain along Carlsbad Village Drive.
• When vehicles exit the car wash, overspray and other waste water collects and flows to the perimeter storm
drain along Harding Street.
• The grounds were found to be in good condition. Some debris was found in the perimeter storm drains,
however the drains appeared to be in relatively good condition.
After discussions with the City of Carlsbad, Vollmer Petroleum and Williams Plumbing agreed to implement the
following corrective actions:
1. The 1,500 gallon storage tank will inspected to ensure its integrity. The discharge pipe from the tank will
be capped and all discharges will be contained onsite. A maintenance schedule, that includes regularly
cleaning and inspection of the tank and perimeter drains, will be developed.
2. A speed bump will be installed near the entrance to the car wash bay to prevent soap and other debris from
leaving the area. An additional clarifier drain will be installed to prevent the accumulation of waste water.
Employees will regularly monitor the area to ensure the drain is properly maintained.
3. The perimeter storm drain that runs along Harding Street will be extended approximately two feet to ensure
all drainage from the lot flows directly to the storage tank. A containment berm may be added if necessary.
4. The detailing station will be moved away from the property line to an area closer to the car wash bay exit.
5. Vollmer Petroleum employees will be trained and made aware of the City's storm water ordinance
requirements and ensure that they take appropriate actions to report, clean, and prevent spills that could
runoff to the street or storm drain system.
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-3009 • 760-602-2799 -FAX 760-602-8562
Please respond in writing by June 19, 2006, stating what actions were taken to implement the corrective actions
outlined in this compliance schedule. Any business that violates any provision of the storm water ordinance or fails
to implement corrective actions as directed by the enforcement official shall be punished, upon conviction, by a fme
not to exceed one thousand dollars for each day in which such violation occurs. The City will continue to conduct
scheduled and unscheduled inspections to verify compliance with storm water regulations. Please keep in mind that
compliance is dependent on the continued use of BMPs to prevent storm water pollution and the consistent
implementation of an employee-training program. If you have any questions or would like more information please
contact me at 760-602-7583.
/netta Gjrandberry
Environmental Specialist
Enclosures
cc: Darren Williams, Williams Plumbing, P.O. Box 710944, Santee, Ca 92072
Clayton Dobbs, Storm Drain Maintenance
Marc Santos, Housing and Redevelopment
David S Bright, White and Bright, 970 Canterbury Place, Escondido, 92025
Citv of Carlsbad
Housing & Redevelopment Department
February 24, 1997
JOHN R. PATTON
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER
76 PRODUCTS
P.O. BOX 25376
SANTA ANA, CA. 92799-5376
RE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME - LOUVERS
Dear Mr. Patton:
Thank you for your letter of February 21, 1997 regarding your request for an extension of
time to install the louvers required for the Unocal Station at Carlsbad Village Drive and
Harding Street in the City of Carlsbad. Your request for an extension to March 14, 1997
is hereby granted. However, it should be noted that you are required to install blue
louvers over the car wash windows, not brown. I am hoping that this was just an error in
your letter and not an actual error in the louvers you have already ordered. Brown louvers
would not be appropriate for the building.
Please note that this approval of the extension of time is based on the City's
understanding that the louvers will be installed as of March 14, 1997. If you have any
questions regarding this correspondence, please contact my office at (619) 434-2935.
Sincerely,
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
Senior Management Analyst
2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (619) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (619) 720-2037 ^
To: Debbie Fountain Pagelofi Friday, February21,1997 3:38:30 PM
76 Products Company
Memorandum
February-21, 1997
Debbie Fountain
C!arlsbad Plannmg Dept.
Carlsbad, CA
(619) 434-2935
Debbie Fountain:
As a condition for occupancy, Carlsbad City Planning Dept. stipulated that UNOCAL 76 Products Company
agree to install brovvn louvers over the car-wash windows, per the revised approved plans. This was agreed to
by 76 Products Company, and an order for the louvers have been placed. However, the installation liability is
still being negotiated.
I would like to request an extension to March 14, 1997. This will allow the negotiations to be compieted, and
the work to be installed.
Regards,
John R. Patton
Construction Manager
cc: Lee Gcorgopoulos
Citv of Carlsbad
Housing & Redevelopment Department
January 9, 1997
JOHN MURPHY
76 PRODUCTS COMPANY
7 CAPOBELLA
IRVINE, CA. 92714
RE: UNOCAL PROJECT, 880 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE
Dear John:
This correspondence is being forwarded to you to follow-up the comments that were
provided to the contractor during the fmal inspection of the Unocal Project at 880
Carlsbad Village Drive. Although the Certificate of Occupancy was approved by the
Housing and Redevelopment Department on 12/31/96 and the Unocal Station was
allowed to open, there were several matters which still needed to be addressed by the
contractor and/or 76 Products Company. Also, there were two matters addressed prior the
fmal inspection which we wanted to remind you are still pending.
The following provides a list of the items discussed during, and prior to, the final
inspection which need to be addressed by Unocal/76 Products Company:
1. The Housing and Redevelopment Department granted approval of the project
architect's request to delay the installation of the window louvers for the car wash
building to a date no later than February 18, 1997. The Certificate of Occupancy was
approved with the understanding that this action would be taken by Unocal prior to
the date noted.
2. The Housing and Redevelopment Department allowed the relocation of the electrical
transformer to the northeast comer of the site with the understanding that Unocal
would landscape this area as much as possible to screen the transformer. During the
final inspection, the Housing and Redevelopment Director indicated to the contractor
that the landscaping was not adequate in the planter area which includes the
transformer. Mr. Becker instructed the contractor to plant an additional tree to the
south of the transformer to provide for more screening. Please work with the City's
Landscape Architect, Larry Black, to plant an appropriate tree at the subject location.
Additionally, with approval of the relocation of the transformer to the northwest
comer, the Housing and Redevelopment Department indicated that there should be no
signs placed in the planter area. Although the signs in the planter area were initially
approved by the Redevelopment Agency under the approved sign permit, removal of
2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (619) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (619) 720-2037 ^
tiiese two signs is now required due to the subsequent relocation of the transformer.
Please remove the two signs in the subject planter area.
3. During the final inspection, the Housing and Redevelopment Director instructed the
contractor to plant additional shrubs in the planter on the southwest comer ofthe site
to ftirther screen the entrance/driveway to the car wash facility.
4. During the final inspection, the Housing and Redevelopment Director instmcted the
contractor to remove the three single information signs located under the "Pro-Wash"
at the upper left comer of the car wash building.
5. During the final inspection, the Housmg and Redevelopment Director and Project
Planner instmcted the contractor to repair damaged concrete (stamped) at the entrance
to the car wash.
If the above matters have already been addressed, we appreciate Unocal's action. If not,
please ensure that the appropriate actions are taken prior to February 18, 1997, which is
the date we will re-inspect the property. We have assumed that you will ensure that the
appropriate representatives of Unocal receive a copy of this correspondence. Please
contact my office at (619) 434-2935 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
Senior Management Analyst
c: Housing and Redevelopment Director
Project Planner, Eric Munoz
Hal Wolfe - Unocal Building Permit Coordinator
Citv of Carlsbad
Housing & Redevelopment Department
December 23, 1996
ALAN HOOPS
HOLMES & NARVER
999 TOWN & COUNTRY ROAD
ORANGE, CA. 92868
RE: UNOCAL STATION NO. 7263, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Dear Mr. Hoops:
Thank you for your letter of December 18, 1996 requesting a temporary "Certificate of
Occupancy" until February 18, 1997 as related to the Unocal Gas Station in the Village of
Carlsbad, Califomia.
The Housing and Redevelopment Department and a number of other departments will be
required to sign off on your final Certificate of Occupancy before it will be issued by the
Building Department. If there are no other actions or corrections required, the Housing
and Redevelopment Department will sign off on the Certificate with the understanding
that the window louvers will be installed no later than Febmary 18, 1997. Please note that
this approval will be conditioned upon the project being otherwise constmcted as noted
on the approved plans. This means that all landscaping must also be properly installed
prior to approval of the Certificate of Occupancy.
If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact my office at
(619) 434-2935.
Sincerely,
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
Senior Management Analyst
2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (619) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (619) 720-2037 ®
Holmes & Narver
December 18, 1996
2876-L-1513
Debbie Fountain
Carlsbad Redevelopment Office
2965 Roseville Street, Suite B
Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389
Fax: (619)720-2037
Phone: (619) 434-2935
UNOCAL S.S. NO. 7263 - CARLSBAD
REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
CARWASH LOUVERS ON ELEVATION 1 OF SHEET WA-2
Dear Debbie:
We are requesting a temporary "Certificate of Occupancy" until Febmary 18, 1997. This
is for louvers on the carwash front elevation. These louvers will be installed per the
approved plans. The installer is anticipating 10 more weeks for delivery to job site than
he will need time to install the louvers above windows.
cc: Phil Dedge, 76 Prod. Co.
John Murphy, 76 Prod. Co.
John Patton, 76 Prod. Co.
Post Office Box 6240, Orange, CA 92863-6240
Fax (714) 543-0955
999 Town & Country Road, Orange, CA 92868
(714) 567-2400
November 4, 1996
TO: LARRY BLACK, PLANNING
ERIC MUNOZ, PLANNING
FROM: DEBBIE FOUNTAIN, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
RELOCATION OF ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER FOR UNOCAL PROJECT
Due to the fact that SDG&E was unable to obtain the easements required to locate the
electrical transformer at the northwest comer of the Unocal project at 880 Carlsbad
Village Drive, the transformer must be relocated to the northeast comer, adjacent to the
sidewalk. This relocation has been reluctantly approved by Housing and Redevelopment
Staff with the understanding that Unocal will revise their landscape plans to reflect the
change and to provide as much landscaping as possible to screen the transformer.
Also, Unocal has been asked to revise their landscape plan to landscape the area where
the transformer was to be originally located. We would like for Unocal to include a tree
in their revised landscape plans for the northwest comer.
This memo is forwarded to you with the attachments for your information. If you have
any questions, give me a call.
Holmes & Narver
Date: 10/29/96
TO:
Name: Evan Becker
Organization: Housing & Development
Fax Nuinber. (619)720-2037
Hard Copy to Follow: • Yes MHO
Ref. No.:
FROM:
Name:
Facsimile Transmission
UNOCAL
S.S.7263- 880 Carlsbad
VillageDr., Carlsbad
Lisa Mora
Title:
Cha^e No.:
Fax Number:
Electrical Engineer
2876
(714)567-2729
Telephone No,: 714-567-2457
No. of Pages:2 Including Cover
Subject: Utility transfomier location. (URGENT!!!!!!!!)
The above mentioned UNOCAL station is under constmction. The SDGE sen/ice planner (Ms.
Carol Chapo) already approved the SDGE transformer location and said that the city ofCarlsbad
doesn't have any problem with the transformer in the public view. However, I thought 1
discussed the transformer location issue with you to avoid any construction delays.
Find attached a copy of a Partial Site Plan (1 page), showing the proposed SDGE transformer
location for your approval. Note that the SDGE transformer is in a planter next to the sidewalk
facing Harding St.
Please sign/date and fax back to me the attached partial Site Plan, if you agree with the location.
Your help is appreciated.
Post Office Box 6240. Orange. CA 92613-6240 999 Town & Country Road, Orange, CA 92668
T0'd <^£0Z0Si6X9T8029A829T 01
E0"d laioi
WASH
• "';-.VIDE SEPARATE GROUNBING ELECTRODE/ " ""JWC G-6 FOR GROUNDING NOTES /
X 10 7
ROI PTE CONSurr OUTSIDE
HAZARDOUS AREAS
'<P
7^ 27
JOT£ 3b
®
IlO O
V
20'd i£:0202^L6T9T802g<^.82gT
rcb EA TC
FOR PAY PI-ONES
FOr^ MONUK
l>V<C
RGROUND FUEL
S TO :
l"s to
TEL BKBD
:NT SIGN a:
•ONI dBf^yyN -B S3W10H WOdd T2:ST 9661-62-130
•CT-21-1996 15:25 FROtl HOLMES 8. NPRUER TO 162a7620816197202037 P.02 HOLMES 8. NPRUER TO 1^^6
Hotnies&Narm
October 21, 1996
CityofCarlsbad
Housing & Redevelopment Department
2965 Roosevelt St., Suite 'B'
Carlsbad, CA» 92008-23S9
attn: Debbie Fountain
Dear Debbie,
Enclosed is a plan showing a new proposed location for the electrical transfonner and Main
electrical switchboard.
San Diego Gas and Electric have requested that the new transfomier be located as shown,
because ofthe distance from the Main Power source. The previous location has been approved
by SDGE and you. John Patton(UNOCAL Constmction Manager) has approved this proposed
location.
Since you and your Planning Depaitment have approved the Site Plan and layout, would you
review this new transformer location and call us regarding this matter.
Thank you.
Allan J. Cormy Architect
cc: PhU Dedge-UNOCAL
John Patton-UNOCAL
John Muiphy-UNOCAL
AknHoops-H&N
LisaMora-H&N
Post Office Box 6240, Orange, CA 9261^^240 999 Town & Country Road, Orange, CA 92668
Fax (714) 543-0956 Telephone (714) 667-2400
OCT-21-1996 15=25
5
FROM HOLMES a NARUER
5n:
16287620816197202037
€0
CM
TOTRL
Pl& j PRODUCTS COMPANY
August 14, 1996
Mr. Ray Patchett
City Manager
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: UNOCAL Project at Carlsbad Village Drive and Harding Street
Dear Mr. Patchett:
Based upon our recent telephone conversation, hopefully our project can be agendized for the
September 10, 1996, Housing and Redevelopment Commissioameeting. As you are aware, the City's
Design Review Board approved our new service station and car wash on August 7, 1996. To date we
have addressed all of the planning issues and the Design Project Board approved the project per a 4-0
vote. My request for the September 10, 1996, public hearing is important to UNOCAL . Since we want to
initiate the construction of the project following the September 10, 1996. meeting. For your information
we have already initiated the building plan check and permit process.
Again, I enjoyed talking to you and I am looking fonA/ard to your determination of a hearing date of
September 10, 1996. If you have any questions, please give me a call at 714/ 833-6825. Wishing you
continued success.
Sincerely,
John Murphy
Project Manager
JM/bjm
cc: Philip Dedge
Matt Fischer
Alan Cornia
Lee Georgopoulos
John_PattQn
?ebbin FountQifT-^
555 Anton Blvd.. Cosca Mesa. California 92626
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 25376. Santa Ana, California 92799-5376
Fax [71 41 428-805 1
A Unocal Comoany
PRODUCTS COMPANY
September 19, 1996
City of Carlsbad
Housing & Redevelopment Department
Ms. Deborah K. Fountain
Senior Management Analysis
2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B
Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389
RE: UNOCAL Conditions of Approval (Site 7263)
Dear Debbie:
As you are aware, UNOCAL must implement a series of conditions of approval prior to the issuance of
building permits. For your information, please note that I have enclosed the Parking Agreements
(Condition 19) since they have to be approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Director.
Furthermore, I have enclosed the Hold Harmless Drainage Agreement (Condition 28), and the Notice of
Restriction On Real Property (Condition 45). As you realize, the Hold Harmless Drainage Agreement
and the Notice of Restriction On Real Property are standard City forms and per the City Clerks office,
they should be sent to the appropriate city staff
Based upon the enclosed information, I trust we have met the intent of the conditions of approval. As
you are aware, per our previous telephone conversations, we plan to pull the building permits
immediately after the hearing with the Housing and Redevelopment Commission.
Again, thank you.
Sincerely,
John Murphy
Project Manager
cc: Matt Fischer
Philip Dedge
Lee Georgopoulos
John Patton Anton Blvd., Costa Mesa, California 92626
Al MaUing Address; P.O. Box 25376, Santa Ana, California 92799-5376
Alan Cornia
Fax (714] 428-8051
A Unocal Company
PRODUCTS COMPANY
August 29, 1996
City of Carlsbad
Deborah K. Fountain
Housing and Redevelopment Department
2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B
Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389
RE: Conditions of Approval
Dear Debbie:
As you realize, the City of Carlsbad has recommended that UNOCAL implement a series of conditions of
approval prior to the issuance of building permits. Based upon our recent discussion, I informed you that
UNOCAL has already submitted the building plans, etc. for plan check. At this time, I am confident that
the Housing and Redevelopment Commission will approve the project on September 17,1996, and
UNOCAL plans to pull the building permits the week of September 16, 1996.
In order to expedite the approval process, please note that I have enclosed two Parking Agreements
(condition 19) for your review and approval. I realize you cannot formally approve the enclosed
information until afterthe public hearing on September 17,1996. However, I want to make sure that
when I submit the original documents they will be in order. On behalf of UNOCAL, could you please
complete your review of the enclosed information by September 6,1996.
Again, I want to thank you for your cooperation and if you have any questions please give me a call.
Thanks.
Sincerely,
John Murphy
Project Manager
cc: Philip Dedge
555 Anton Blvd., Costa Mesa, California 92626
Mailing Address; P.O. Box 25376, Santa Ana, California 92799-5376
Fax (714) 428-8051
A Unocal Company
r CITY OF CARLSBAD
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DEPARMENT
FAX COVER MEMO
08/01/96 8:48 AM No. of Pages: 1
TO: Art Carlson
COMPANY NAME: Re: Unocal Station at 880 Carlsbad Village Drive
FAXNO: 729-8457
FROM: Debbie Fountain, Housing and Redevelopment Department
FAX NO: 720-2037
TELEPHONE NO: 434-2935
MESSAGE:
In response to the notice for public comments on the Environmental documents for the proposed Unocal Gas
Station and Car Wash project located at 880 Carlsbad Village Drive, you faxed a letter to Eric Munoz (of the
City Planning Department) indicating opposition to the issuance of the redevelopment permit for the project.
Although you did not provide your mailing address or a phone number in your correspondence, I did want to
attempt to respond to your concems. So, I am hoping that I will be able to contact you through the fax number
indicated on the letter we received from you (which indicates that you sent your fax from the Unocal Station).
Gas stations and car washes do not have a parking requirement per the Carlsbad Municipal Code. However, the
proposed project will provide for 3 parking spaces on the site for customer use and 3 off-site parking spaces for
employees. Your other concem regarding traffic is more difficult to address in a brief fax. If you would like to
obtain more information on the project or the proposed conditions of approval, please contact my office at 434-
2935 to obtain a copy of the staff report on the project. I believe the report will address a majority of your
concems. You are also invited to attend the Design Review Board Meeting on August 7,1996. The Board will
be considering the Unocal project permit at this meeting which begins at 5:00pm in the City Council Chambers
located at 1200 Carisbad Village Drive.
Thank you for expressing your concems to the City of Carlsbad. If you have any questions, please contact my
office at 434-2935.
2965 ROOSEVELT STREET
CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
C?itv of Carlsbad
Housing & Redevelopment Department
August 1, 1996
MARVIN SMITH
UNOCAL GAS STATION
880 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
RE: UNOCAL GAS STATION AND CAR WASH PROPOSAL
Dear Marvin:
Enclosed please find a copy of the staff report which has been prepared for Design
Review Board consideration regarding the Unocal Gas Station and Car Wash project
proposed for your location by the Union Oil Company of Califomia.
The enclosed staff report is being forwarded to you for your review. The original public
hearing for the project was held in April, 1996. It was continued to allow staff the
opportunity to work with the Union Oil Company of Califomia on various issues which
were raised during the public hearing. The project is now being retumed to the Design
Review Board for final consideration. The Board will consider the project at 5:00pm on
Wednesday, August 7,1996 in the City Council Chambers located at 1200 Carlsbad
Village Drive.
If you have any questions regarding the staff report, please contact my office at (619)
434-2935.
Sincerely,
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
Senior Management Analyst
Enclosure
2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (619) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (619) 720-2037 ^
# •
Citv of Carlsbad
Housing & Redevelopment Department
August 1, 1996
OLGA MAY
O. MAY INVESTMENT INC.
2945 HARDING STREET #111
CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
RE: UNOCAL GAS STATION AND CAR WASH
Dear Ms. May:
Enclosed please find a copy of the staff report which has been prepared for Design
Review Board consideration regarding the Unocal Gas Station and Car Wash project
proposed for 880 Carlsbad Village Drive. The staff report includes a copy of the Noise
Analysis which was recently completed for the project.
The enclosed staff report is being forwarded to you for your review. The original public
hearing for the project was held in April, 1996. It was continued to allow staff the
opportunity to work with the applicant. Union Oil Company of Califomia, on various
issues which were raised during the public hearing. The project is now being retumed to
the Design Review Board for final consideration. The Board will consider the project at
5:00pm on Wednesday, August 7,1996 in the City Council Chambers located at 1200
Carlsbad Village Drive.
I believe the applicant has been able to address a majority of the issues which you raised
in your letter to the Design Review Board, dated April 10, 1996. If not, you are invited to
attend the Design Review Board meeting on August 7, 1996 to express any remaining
concems you have regarding the subject project.
If you have any questions regarding the staff report, please contact my office at (619)
434-2935.
Sincerely,
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
Senior Management Analyst
Enclosure
2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (619) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (619) 720-2037 ^
of Carlsbad
Housing & Redevelopment Department
July 31, 1996
Hi John -
Here is a copy of the staff report which has been prepared for the Unocal Project on
Carlsbad Village Drive. The report has been forwarded to the Design Review Board
members and the project is scheduled for August 7, 1996 as we discussed. I have
forwarded a copy of the report to Olga May, who was the woman complaining about the
noise impact on her office building tenants. I will let you know if she wants a meeting
prior to the DRB hearing on August 7*. I think her issues have been adequately addressed
in the report.
I also wanted to let you know that we currently have one vacant seat on the Board. I have
confirmed with each of the Board members that they will be present at the meeting next
week. We only have one potential problem. Board Member Compas is going to be out of
town just prior to the meeting. He anticipates that he will be back in town in time for the
meeting. However, there is a slight possibility that he won't make it back. There will still
be three members present without him. However, to take action all 3 of those members
must agree on the action. In other words, the Board must have 3 affirmative votes to take
any action. I don't believe there is a problem but I just wanted you to be aware of the
possible situation.
Thanks for the financial information! See you on August 7*.
2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (619) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (619) 720-2037 ®
July 15, 1996
TO: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT - EVAN BECKER
PLANNING - GARY WAYNE, ERIC MUNOZ
CITY ATTORNEY - RICH RUDOLF
ENGINEERING - DAVE HAUSER, BOB WOJCIK, CLYDE
WICKHAM
FROM: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT - DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
DRAFT STAFF REPORT FOR UNOCAL PROJECT FOR AUGUST 7,1996
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING
Attached for your review is a copy of the draft staff report for the Unocal Project at 880
Carlsbad Village Drive. This project was continued from the April 17* Design Review
Board meeting to address additional issues related to noise, drainage, circulation, etc.
The two previous reports distributed to the Design Review Board have been combined
into the attached single report with additional comments included as related to the
recently completed noise analysis, on site circulation plan and drainage plan.
If you have any comments, corrections, etc. on the attached report, please forward them
to my office no later than Tuesday, July 30,1996.
Thanks!
July 1, 1996
TO: ERIC MUNOZ, PLANNING
CLYDE WICKHAM, ENGINEERING
FROM: DEBBIE FOUNTAIN, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
REVISED PLANS FOR THE UNOCAL PROJECT
Attached please find a copy of the revised plans for the Unocal Carwash Project in the
Village Redevelopment Area. If you have any comments or questions regarding the
revised plans, please contact me at X2935.
Thanks!
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
UNOCAL PROJECT
880 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE
DATE EVENT/TASK/ACTIVITY
10/5/96 Met with Ken Quon & Brian Hunter to discuss
conceptual plan submitted by Unocal for Car Wash;
Consensus of group was that site was constrained -
maybe too small for proposed car wash; Engineering
indicated issue regarding queue area & how it could
be resolved; Planning had no issues - just need to
design well; fax sent to Unocal Rep. on 10/6/96 from D.
Fountain outlining concern and Eng. comments.
11/2/95 Unocal submits a second proposed site plan for review
to Housing & Red.; plan fon/varded to Ken Quon for
review.
11/9/95 Ken Quon provided comments on design issues and
indicated a condition which is placed on gas stations
related to the sump drain under the canopy.
11/16/95 D. Fountain fon/varded letter to Unocal Rep. regarding
Engineering comments; K. Quon's memo forwarded to
applicant with redlined copy of plans. At this time, the
applicant was told that based on comments received
from Eng. & Ping, that the car wash use could get
approved if it addressed the issues/design
modifications noted in K. Quon's memo.
12/11/95 Formal Application received from Unocal; submitted
directly to Community Development; copies of
application and related documents fon/varded to
appropriate staff members by Ping. Staff.
12/20/95 D. Fountain forwarded a memo to Planning Dept. &
Engineering Dept. requesting comments on the
completeness of the application by January 8, 1996;
completeness letter due to applicant by January 11,
1996.
1/8/96 E. Munoz indicated via E-Mail that application was
complete with 2 issues related to landscaping and
architecture.
1/10/96 D. Fountain called Jim Davis and requested
Engineering comments on application completeness.
Jim indicated that the application was complete, there
were no engineering issues and that he was ready to
prepare conditions.
1/10/96 D.Fountain fon/varded a Itr. to applicant indicating that
application was complete and provided a list of issues
to be resolved; issues related to landscaping and
architecture.
1/11/96 J. Davis fonA/arded a memo to D. Fountain indicating
that Engineering had completed its review and found
the application to be complete. In this memo, an issue
was raised regarding the driveway edges and the
planter curbing.
2/27/96 D. Fountain met with Unocal reps, to discuss final set
of plans and processing of project; Engineering issue
outlined in 1/11/96 memo was presented to architect
for the applicant; applicant was told that April 3rd or
17th were the target dates for taking the project to DRB
if the project was exempt from environmental review;
applicant told what to submit to continue the
processing.
2/27/96 D. Fountain requested information from E. Munoz on
the final determination regarding the environmental
review; E. Munoz indicated that the project was exempt
and that he did not see a problem with the April dates
for a DRB hearing.
3/18/96 D. Fountain fon/varded a final set of project plans to
Planning (Eric), Engineering (Jim), Building (Pat),
Community Services (Dave), Water District (Jerry) and
Fire (Mike). A cover memo was fon/varded with the
plans which requested conditions for approval of the
project; conditions requested by 3/29/96.
3/19/96 E. Munoz fon/varded Planning conditions to D.
Fountain; D. Fountain began work on draft report for
DRB with conditions received from Ping.
?
(around 3/20 or 3/21)
Clyde Wickam, Engineering, contacted D. Fountain via
phone & indicated that he had been transferred to
Land Use & would be taking over for J. Davis. 1 asked
if he had the file, he said yes but would like the Arco
file to review for conditions. Clyde picked up the Arco
file from Housing & Redevelopment. Clyde indicated
that the conditions for the project would be pretty
much the same as the Arco project. The day Clyde
picked up the file he indicated that he was going to
complete his report by noon that day and submit it for
review because he was going on vacation for several
days.
3/27 or 3/28/96 D. Fountain spoke to C. Wickam and asked him if his
report was complete; he indicated that he was almost
done with it; C. Wickam indicated again that the report
was fairly easy because it was pretty much like the
Arco project; he indicated that he was verifying the
EDUs and the ADT for the project.
3/29/96 D. Fountain made a decision to go ahead and try to
draft up the Engineering part of the report to keep the
process moving and still try to hit the April 17th DRB
meeting; the reports for the Arco Project in the Village
and the Shell Station on Pio Pico and CBVD were used
by D. Fountain to draft the report for the Unocal
project.
4/3/96 D. Fountain had still not yet received comments/
conditions from the Engineering Dept.; D. Fountain
decided to route the draft report she had prepared for
review prior to receiving Engineering's report; draft
reports were placed in the interoffice mail for delivery
to Ping. (Eric), Eng. (Dave H.), Police (Jodee), Building
(Pat), Water (Jerry), Fire (Mike) and City Attorney
(Rich); D. Fountain placed a special note on the memo
8L report to D. Hauser which indicated that the draft
report was prepared prior to receiving Eng. comments
but that she would change the report in any manner
required to be consistent with the report Engineering
had prepared; comments to be to D. Fountain by 4/10.
?
(4/3/96 or 4/4/96)
D. Fountain spoke to C. Wickam and asked him when
the report from Eng. was going to be ready; C.
Wickam indicated that he had turned the report into B.
Wojcik but that he was on vacation and would not
return until 4/8/96; C. Wickam was not sure if he could
take the report directly to D. Hauser; D. Fountain told
C. Wickam that 4/8 would still be OK to make any
changes to the draft report by 4/10; D. Fountain
explained to C. Wickam about the draft report she had
given to D. Hauser; C. Wickam said that he was sure
that B. Wojcik would sign his report once he returned
on 4/8.
4/8/96 Comments on draft report received from Building (Pat)
and Planning (Eric); draft report revised to reflect
comments; no comments from Engineering.
4/10/96 D. Fountain fonA/arded an E-Mail message (2:46pm) to
R. Rudolf and D. Hauser indicating that she had not yet
received comments from them on the draft report and
that she was going to be out of the office as of 3:00pm
on 4/10. She also was going to be out on 4/11 and
4/12 (all day) for Coastal Commission. So, she
requested that they complete their review of the draft
or final report that they would be receiving in the
interoffice mail and fonA/ard comments by Monday
(4/15) morning. D. Fountain indicated that she would
prepare a supplemental report to correct any
information or add conditions. R. Rudolf fonA/arded
comments via E-Mail on 4/10/96 (5:42pm) requesting
additional information be added to the report and
clarification on several points.
4/15/96 D. Fountain prepared a supplemental report to address
R. Rudolf concerns/comments; still no report from
Engineering; D. Fountain left a phone message for C.
Wickam requesting comments for the supplemental
report; no return call from Engineering.
4/16/96 D. Fountain completed the supplemental report without
any additional comments from Engineering and hand-
delivered it to the DRB members with copies to R.
Rudolf, G. Wayne, D. Hauser, B.Wojcik, C. Wickam and
E. Munoz.
4/17/96 Unocal project was presented to the DRB for review
and a public hearing. DRB & public had various ??s
related to parking, drainage, noise from the car wash
and circulation on the site. Project was continued to
May 1, 1996 with instructions to staff to draft some
additional conditions related to a noise study, and an
on-site circulation analysis.
4/22/96 Applicant contacted D. Fountain and asked to continue
the item to May 15 or June 5, 1996 to allow them time
to go ahead and complete a noise study and an on-
site circulation analysis. Staff recommended June 5,
1996 for the continuance; applicant agreed. DRB
Chairperson Welshons also found the continuance to
be acceptable and thought it was a good idea.
4/22/96
or thereabouts
Sent E-Mail message to C. Wickam and D. Hauser
(and maybe B. Wojcik) indicating that the project had
been continued to June 5, 1996 to allow them more
time to review the Engineering conditions on the
project and recommend any changes; comments/
report from Engineering requested by May 17, 1996.
5/2/96 D. Fountain & C. Wickam met with applicant to discuss
noise study, on-site circulation analysis, drainage,
parking, etc. for the project based on discussions held
at the DRB meeting on April 17, 1996. Applicant will
fonA/ard all reports to D. Fountain by May 17, 1996 for
review prior to final preparation of "conditions" report
for DRB meeting of June 5, 1996.
PRODUCTS COMPANY
July 1, 1996
City of Carisbad
Housing & Redevelopment Department
Ms. Deborah K. Fountain
Senior Management Analysis
2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B
Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389
RE: RP-86-7(A) / CDP 95-05 UNOCAL GAS STATION AND CAR WASH
Dear Debbie:
As you are aware, the Design Review Board held a public hearing on April 17, 1996, to evaluate the
demolition of the existing work bays and mini-mart at the existing UNOCAL station and the
construction ofa new express car wash. Based upon the meeting, the Design Review Board continued
the public hearing to May 1, 1996, so City staff could address the proposed conditions of approval
recommended by UNOCAL, the Design Review Board, and the citizens ofCarlsbad. For example,
UNOCAL recommended that an Acoustical Study be completed prior to the issuance of building
permits to address any potential noise issues. However, after giving the planning process some
thought, I gave you a call and recommended that the public hearing be continued to July 17, 1996.
As you realize, I requested the continuance so UNOCAL could complete the various studies and
recommend the appropriate conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures to the Design Review
Board and citizens as part ofthe public hearing process as opposed to prior to the issuance of building
permits. On the behalf of UNOCAL, it's very important that we facilitate the City and our neighbors
since we have been a member of your business community for many years. Based upon our meeting of
May 2, 1996, to confirm the outstanding issues and conditions of approval associated with the proposed
project, please note that the following summarizes my understanding of the issues and UNOCAL'S
recommendations for project approval.
ISSUE - FLOODING
At the Design Review Board meeting the property owner who is located behind the existing service
station was concerned about the flow of water on to her existing parking lot. Currently, when the gas
station is washed down, the water runs on to her parking lot. Based upon the potential flooding issue, I
555 Anton Blvd , Costa Mesa. California 92626
Mailing Address; P 0. Box 25376, Santa Ana, California 92799-5376
Fax (714) 428-8051
A Unocal Comoany
requested Holmes and Narver to prepare a Grading/ Drainage Plan to mitigate any potential flooding at
the site. Based upon the plan, the proposed project will decrease the impact of water onto adjacent
properties. Per the enclosed plan, there will be a masonry wall and/or concrete curb running the entire
length of the property and the site will be graded so water flows to the south. Furthermore, storm water
and hose down water will be collected before it leaves the site by V-gutters and trench drains and
conveyed underground to the City's storm drainage system. The new facility will also meet NPDES
requirements. Storm and hose down water will pass through an oil-water separator before entering the
storm water drainage system which will help improve the quality of the storm water entering the ocean.
UNOCAL RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the Grading and Drainage Plan UNOCAL would recommend that the City condition the
project so the City has to approve the Grading/ Drainage Plan prior to the issuance ofthe grading
permits to mitigate the flooding of the adjacent properties.
ISSUE - PARKING
Per the proposed parking plan, three on-site parking spaces will be provided at the site. However, the
Design Review Board had reservations with only three parking spaces since three UNOCAL employees
will be on site between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. To address the City's concerns UNOCAL has
evaluated the issue and is willing to provide an additional three off-site parking spaces.
UNOCAL RECOMMENDATION
I would like to recommend that the City condition UNOCAL to enter into a Shared Parking Agreement
prior to the issuance of building permits. The Parking Agreement would require an additional three
parking spaces off-site. The three off-site parking spaces would be for our employees and the three on-
site parking spaces should be reserved for customer parking only. Furthermore, the off-site parking
spaces will to be in close proximity to the project site.
ISSUE - UNLOADING OF FUEL
Recently, the City asked UNOCAL how the fuel trucks would enter and leave the project site. Based
upon the City's request please note that I have enclosed the Fuel Delivery Plan and it meets the intent
of the standards established by the City.
UNOCAL RECOMMENDATION
UNOCAL would like to recommend that the City condition the project so the unloading of fuel can
only take place between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
ISSUE - ON-SITE CIRCULATION PLAN
As you are aware, the Design Review Board requested an On-Site Circulation Plan to address the flow
of traffic on-site. Please note that I have enclosed an On-Site Circulation Plan for your review. The
proposed circulation pattern consists of vehicles entering the site via the easternmost driveway on
Carlsbad Village Drive (a one-way entrance) or the Harding Street driveway, fueling underneath the
canopy, and either exiting via the southwest driveway on Carlsbad Village Drive (a one-way exit) or
proceeding to the car wash entrance. One-way circulation (from northeast to southwest) will be
permitted through the fueling area. The one-way driveways will be marked with "entrance-only" and
"exit-only" signage. Vehicles leaving the car wash will use the Harding Street driveway to exit the site.
I XuDdujoo spnpoj(j viNaojnvD •Qvasnavo ao 3ovniA QvesiavD oee
HiVd H3mfi
S S IVOONn li
C9
Oi
Hn
I!
iuhi m t ^s^s til \ l\
if! !
Ihs I
ml: si: hp
• H N
i 8
ifK| I iiif Mi
0
June 13, 1996
TO: UNOCAL FILE
FROM: SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST, DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
ENGINEERING COMMENTS ON REVISIONS TO UNOCAL/CARWASH PROJECT
Per Clyde Wickam (2pm), Engineering issues have been resolved with the revisions Unocal
is making to the plans for the Unocal project to demolish existing work bays and build a new
carwash on the site. Engineering no longer has issues with circulation or drainage on the site.
One additional condition will need to be added to the project to address the reconstmction of
Streetscape Improvements. Unocal will need to tear up a portion of the paved sidewalk and
relocate a street tree. The condition will need to state that these improvements will be
reconstmcted in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer. Clyde will prepare this condition
upon his retum from vacation on June 24, 1996. No other Engineering conditions will need
to be added to the original report completed by Redevelopment. Clyde prepared a brief staff
report which will be forwarded to Redevelopment; this report ensures that documentation is
on file ensuring that Engineering is supportive of the project as redesigned.
Eric Munoz, the project planner completed the new environmental review for the project and
submitted it for publishing in the local newspaper on June 12, 1996. The public review and
comment period will be complete by July 12, 1996. The project is rescheduled to be heard
by the DRB on July 17, 1996. Also, Eric spoke to John Murphy, Unocal Representative,
regarding final design issues for the project. Based on the noise analysis, 6 foot walls will be
constmcted on the full width of the property from east to west, on the north side of the
property. This will resolve any drainage issues for the property to the north. Unocal was
instmcted to provide for landscaping on the 6 foot walls and to add additional landscaping at
the entrance to the carwash.
PRODUCTS COMPANY
June 10, 1996
City of Carlsbad
Ms. Deborah K. Fountain
Senior Management Analyst
2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B
Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389
RE: UNOCAL Project
Dear Deborah:
Based upon our previous conversation, I would like to schedule a meeting with the
citizens who had concerns with our project. As you realize, the potential issues have
been resolved, however, a meeting with the citizens would be helpful. If you feel my
request has merit, please give me a call and perhaps we can schedule a meeting for
the week of July 1 or July 8, 1996.
Thanks.
Sincerely,
John Murphy \ \{
Project Manager \Jr
cc: Philip Dedge
Allan Cornia
555 Anton Blvd., Costa Mesa, California 92626
Mailing Address; P.O. Box 25376, Santa Ana, California 92799-5376
Fax (71 4) 428-8051
A Unocal Company
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
May 29, 1996
John Murphy
UNOCAL
7 Capobella
Irvine, CA 92714
SUBJECT: RP 86-07(A)/CDP 95-05 - UNOCAL - ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The above referenced project was processing toward a Design Review Board (DRB)
hearing under the project management of Housing and Redevelopment staff.
Planning staff input and involvement included the environmental review aspect of
this project. Initially, a determination of categorical exemption (Class 3 - Replacing
Existing Structures) was made based on the project review up to that point.
Subsequent review and noise analysis by yourself, the applicant, has revealed that
certain noise impacts will occur from the car wash use and appropriate mitigation
will have to be integrated into the project's overall design and final development.
Therefore, this letter serves to fornnally rescind the earlier determination of
categorical exemption in light of anticipated noise impacts and corresponding
mitigation measures that will become part of the project. Processing of this project
will now involve a negative declaration (mitigated or standard depending upon the
final assessment of noise impacts and required mitigating measures), which will be
prepared and made a part of the package going to the DRB.
If you have any questions regarding the environmental review aspects of your land
use applications, please contact Eric Munoz at 438-1161, extension 4441.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
c: Debbie Fountain, Housing and Redevelopment
2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-0894
May 17, 1996
TO: CLYDE WICKAM, ENGINEERING
ERIC MUNOZ, PLANNING
FROM: DEBBIE FOUNTAIN, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
UNOCAL EXPRESS CAR WASH - RP 86-7(A)/CDP 95-05
Attached please find additional information submitted by the Unocal Company as related to
the noise analysis and circulation study conducted by Unocal in response to the issues raised
at the DRB meeting on April 17, 1996.
I would like to meet with you on Thursday afternoon. May 23, 1996 at 2:00pm, if possible,
to discuss this information and determine what additional conditions should be recommended
to the the DRB. Attached is also some conditions I had drafted following the DRB meeting to
address their issues. Please take a look at this infonnation and let me know what you think.
Thanks.
PRODUCTS COMPANY
May 17, 1996
City of Carlsbad
Housing & Redevelopment Department
Ms. Deborah K. Fountain
Senior Management Analysis
2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B
Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389
RE: RP-86-7(A) / CDP 95-05 UNOCAL GAS STATION AND CAR WASH
Dear Debbie:
As you are aware, the Design Review Board held a public hearing on April 17, 1996, to
evaluate the demolition of the existing work bays and mini-mart at the existing UNOCAL
station and the construction of a new express car wash. Based upon the meeting, the
Design Review Board continued the public hearing to May 1,1996, so City staff could
address the proposed conditions of approval recommended by UNOCAL, the Design
Review Board, and the citizens of Carlsbad. For example, UNOCAL recommended that an
Acoustical Study be completed prior to the issuance of building permits to address any
potential noise issues. However, after giving the planning process some thought, I gave you
a call and recommended that the public hearing be continued to June 5, 1996.
As you realize, I requested the continuance so UNOCAL could complete the various studies
and recommend the appropriate conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures to the
Design Review Board and citizens as part of the public hearing process as opposed to prior
to the issuance of building permits. On the behalf of UNOCAL, it's very important that we
facilitate the City and our neighbors since we have been a member of your business
community for many years. Based upon our meeting of May 2, 1996, to confirm the
outstanding issues and conditions of approval associated with the proposed project, please
note that the following summarizes my understanding of the issues and UNOCAL'S
recommendations for project approval.
ISSUE - FLOODING
At the Design Review Board meeting the property owner who is located behind the existing
service station was concerned about the flow of water on to her existing parking lot.
Currently, when the gas station is washed down, the water runs on to her parking lot. Based
upon the potential flooding issue, I requested Holmes and Narver to prepare a Grading/
Drainage Plan to mitigate any potential flooding at the site. Based upon the plan, the
proposed project will decrease the impact of water onto adjacent properties. Per the
attached plan, there will be a masonry wall and/or concrete curb running the entire length of
the property and the site will be graded so water flows to the south. Furthermore, storm
water and hose down water will be collected before it leaves the site by V-gutters and trench
drains and conveyed underground to the City's storm drainage system. The new facility will
555 Anton Blvd., Costa Mesa, California 92626
Mailing Address; P.O. Box 25376, Santa Ana, California 92799-5376
Fax (71 41 428-8051
A Unocal Company
also meet NPDES requirements. Storm and hose down water will pass through an oil-water
separator before entering the storm water drainage system which will help improve the
quality of the storm water entering the ocean.
UNOCAL RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the Grading and Drainage Plan UNOCAL would recommend that the City
condition the project so the City has to approve the Grading/ Drainage Plan prior to the
issuance of the grading permits to mitigate the flooding of the adjacent properties.
ISSUE - PARKING
Per the proposed parking plan, three on-site parking spaces will be provided at the site.
However, the Design Review Board had reservations with only three parking spaces since
three UNOCAL employees will be on site between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. To address the
City's concerns UNOCAL has evaluated the issue and is willing to provide an additional
three off-site parking spaces,
UNOCAL RECOMMENDATION
I would like to recommend that the City condition UNOCAL to enter into a Shared Parking
Agreement prior to the issuance of building permits. The Parking Agreement would require
an additional three parking spaces off-site. The three off-site parking spaces would be for
our employees and the three on-site parking spaces should be reserved for customer
parking only. Furthermore, the off-site parking spaces would have to be in close proximity to
the project site.
ISSUE - UNLOADING OF FUEL
Recently, the City asked UNOCAL how the fuel trucks would enter and leave the project site.
Based upon the City's request please note that I have attached the Fuel Delivery Plan and it
meets the intent of the standards established by the City.
UNOCAL RECOMMENDATION
UNOCAL would like to recommend that the City condition the project so the unloading of fuel
can only take place between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
ISSUE - ON-SITE CIRCULATION PLAN
As you are aware, the Design Review Board requested an On-Site Circulation Plan to
address the flow of traffic on-site. Please note that I have attached an On-Site Circulation
Plan for your review. The proposed circulation pattern consists of vehicles entering the site
via the easternmost driveway on Carlsbad Village Drive (a one-way entrance) or the
Harding Street driveway, fueling underneath the canopy, and either exiting via the
southwest driveway on Carlsbad Village Drive (a one-way exit) or proceeding to the car
wash entrance. One-way circulation (from northeast to southwest) will be permitted through
the fueling area. The one-way driveways will be marked with "entrance-only" and "exit-only"
signage. Vehicles leaving the car wash will use the Harding Street driveway to exit the site.
The car wash attendant at the exit will direct vehicles out onto Harding Street. With clearly
marked pavement delineation and directional signs, the driveways will not pose traffic safety
or congestion problems.
UNOCAL RECOMMENDATION
The City should condition the project so the On-Site Circulation Plan has to be implemented
by UNOCAL.
VICINITY MAP
NC SCALE
HARDING STREET
Ul
>
CL
Q
m
O
<
-J
>
Q
<
CD
CD
-J
CC
<
FIGURE 1
ON-SITE CIRCULATION PLAN
.'•2e3P.N;:.:w[,
TRANSPOf=»TATION/ENVIRONMEMTAL/URBAN SYSTEMS
3347 MishelECfi Dnva, SuitJ i!*.'. • irvins, ::£inocm 92715 • CHl 75t.-g4*!J
ISSUE - ON-SITE PUBLIC TELEPHONE
As you realize, UNOCAL supported the recommendation of the Design Review Board in
reference to a public telephone near the cashiers booth. Furthermore, I recommend that the
public telephone be for out call service only.
UNOCAL RECOMMENDATION
Condition the applicant to provide a public telephone on-site with out call service only.
ISSUE - TIME LIMIT ON THE MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT/
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
At the April 17, 1996, Design Review Board meeting the board asked if the applicant would
support a condition which only granted approval of the Major Redevelopment Permit/
Conditional Use Permit for a period of five (5) years. At the meeting I indicated that UNOCAL
had reservations with the condition because of the substantial investment we were making
in the community. As you are aware, the City currently has the discretion to revoke the
permits after a public hearing if it is found that the use has a substantial detrimental effect on
the surrounding land uses and the public's health and welfare, or the conditions imposed
upon the project.
UNOCAL RECOMMENDATION
At this time, UNOCAL would like to recommend that the City draft a condition of approval
which grants approval of the Major Redevelopment Permit/ Conditional Use Permit for a
period of ten (10) years. Furthermore, the permits may be extended for a period of ten (10)
years upon written application of the applicant made no less than 90 days prior to the
expiration date. However, the Planning Commission may not grant such extension, unless it
finds that there are no substantial negative effects on surrounding land uses or the public's
health and welfare.
ISSUE - NOISE ANALYSIS
As you are aware, a majority of the residents at the April 17, 1996, meeting expressed
concern with the potential noise associated with the project. At the meeting I indicated that
UNOCAL would undertake a Noise Analysis for the proposed car wash. The City of
Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual (September 1995) was consulted in an attempt to find
noise ordinance limits for non-transportation related noise. No limits were found that strictly
apply to this type of noise source. However, the City does have indoor noise guidelines for
general offices. Therefore, the consultant was able to demonstrate compliance of the project
with the City of Carlsbad indoor noise level guidelines. Since the City's noise guidelines do
not specify noise limits for non-transportation noise sources, I requested the consultant to
"also" evaluate the project per the County of San Diego's Noise Ordinance since their
ordinance specifies noise limits for non-transportation noise services. Please note that I
have attached a copy of the Noise Analysis Report prepared by Mestre Greve Associates.
UNOCAL RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the noise studies I would like to recommend the following mitigation measures
as conditions of approval.
1) The Wind Shear Air Dryer (with silencer) by Proto-Vest (or a dryer with equal or lower
noise level) shall be used;
2) The skylights in the car wash tunnel will need to be at least 1/4" laminated glass.
3) Car wash operation shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. It will
not be possible to meet the 55 LEQ(H) County Noise Ordinance at the northwest property
line, as required between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Therefore, City staff should modify the
hours of operation for the car wash to 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. as opposed to 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. as
recommended in the April 17, 1996, staff report.
4) The height of the door at the exit end of the tunnel shall be reduced to 10 feet.
5) An enclosure shall be constructed around the vacuum unit, the enclosure will need to
surround three sides and the top of the vacuum unit. The three walls shall consist of stucco
construction, brick, or any masonry material. The top may be constructed of any suitable
material with a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot (typically a 5/8"
Plexiglas).
6) A masonry wall 9.5 feet high shall extend 45' beyond the entrance end of the tunnel.
7) A masonry wall 12.0 feet high shall extend 20' beyond the exit end of the tunnel. Based
upon the above recommendations UNOCAL would also like to recommend that the
Landscape Plan be modified prior to the issuance of building permits to illustrate the
planting of vines on the masonry walls adjacent to the car wash.
Following your review of the technical studies and the recommended conditions of approval,
if you have any questions please give me a call prior to the Design Review Board meeting of
June 5, 1996. Furthermore, as I have indicated to date, I would like the City to schedule a
meeting with the citizens who attended the Design Review Board meeting so I can present
our recommendations for each of their concerns. Hopefully you can schedule the meeting
the week of May 20th or the 27th, 1996. Again, I would like to thank you and the Design
Review Board for giving UNOCAL the opportunity to address and resolve the issues early in
the planning process.
Sincerely,
Johnr Murphy
Project Manager
cc: Mr. Bill Compas, Design Review Board
Ms. Sarah Marquez, Design Review Board
Ms. Peggy Savary, Design Review Board
Mr. Nick Vessey, Design Review Board
Ms. Kim Welshons, Design Review Board
Mr. Evan Becker, Housing & Redevelopment Director
Mr. Clyde E. Wickham, Associate Engineer
Mr. Cary Brockman, KHR Associates
Mr. Robert Mattox, Holmes & Narver
Mr. Fred Greve, Mestre Greve Associates
Mr. Philip Dedge, UNOCAL
Mr. Ron Jones, UNOCAL
May 3, "1996
TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
FROM: SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST, DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS REQUESTED BY DRB ON UNOCAL PROJECT
As mentioned previously, the DRB did continue the Unocal Project in order to give
staff the opportunity to draft some additional conditions for the project based on the
direction given by DRB. I am still waiting for the draft minutes from the meeting to
make sure that I did not miss anything in my notes. I have drafted the following
conditions to date based on what I think I heard at the meeting on April 17, 1996.
Since the time of the meeting, however, the applicant has agreed to complete the
studies desired by the DRB. So, these conditions may change again before we get to
DRB on June 5, 1996. Also, Rich still needs to review them.
Staff is suggesting the following new or revised conditions to address DRB concerns:
Revise Condition No. 13 in DRB Resolution No. 248 to read as follows:
13. Prior to building permit approval for the car wash facility, the applicant shall, at
a minimum, take the following actions:
(a) Incorporate water recycling equipment into the interior design of the car
wash facility; and
(b) Complete an analysis of the noise generated by the car wash facility. If
the results of the analysis do not support the fact that the noise from the
car wash attenuates to ambient noise levels at thirty (30) feet or less, the
applicant shall be required to take all appropriate mitigation actions to
ensure that the noise from the car wash will attenuate to ambient noise
levels at thirty (30) feet or less.
Revise Condition No. 14 in DRB Resolution No. 248 to read as follows:
14. The applicant shall take the following actions as related to on-going operation
of the facilities on the site:
(a) A restroom shall be made available for public use at all times during
regular operating hours of the car wash and gas station; and
(b) The public telephone(s) on the site shall be limited to "call out" only; and
'(c) The non-handicap parking spaces shall be marked for use by
"Customers Only". The applicant shall enter into a parking agreement
with a private property owner within 600 feet of the project site for the
purposes of non-handicap employee parking for the Unocal Station.
Revise Condition No. 15 in DRB Resolution No. 248 to read as follows:
15. The applicant shall prepare a site plan which clearly identifies the traffic flow
patterns on the site and submit it to the Housing and Redevelopment Director
for approval prior to building permit approval. The applicant shall be required
to monitor and manage the on-site traffic on a daily basis. A good faith effort
shall be made by the applicant to reduce traffic congestion on the site as well
as minimizing the traffic impacts on Harding Street and Carlsbad Village Drive.
Revise Condition No. 19 in DRB Resolution No. 248 to read as follows:
19. All conditions of the previously approved redevelopment permit for the service
station shall remain in effect as related to the gas service station and as
outlined in Design Review Board Resolution No. 72 with the modification to
Condition No. 13 to place a ten (10) year time limit on the permit for the
operations of the sen/ice station or the effectiveness of the permit. The permit
for the gas station will expire within ten (10) years of the date action is taken by
the Housing and Redevelopment Commission on this resolution, unless action
is taken by the applicant to request an extension of the permit. There are no
limits to the number of extensions which may be granted for the subject permit.
If there are any changes to the above conditions, I will let you know.
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
c: Housing and Redevelopment Director
May 3, 1996
TO: DAVE HAUSER, BOB WOJCIK, CLYDE WICKAM
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
FROM: DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD REPORT ON UNOCAL PROJECT
As a reminder, please fonA/ard your comments regarding additional conditions for the
Unocal project or corrections to the previous reports (original and supplemental) to
my office by May 17, 1996. This project has been continued to the Design Review
Board meeting of June 5, 1996. Upon my return from vacation, I will be preparing a
staff report to return this item to the Design Review Board for final consideration.
A meeting has been held with the applicant to discuss comments made by the
Design Review Board on April 17, ^996. The applicant has prepared a conceptual
drainage plan and is working on a noise study for the car wash and an analysis of the
on-site circulation. Information related to these matters will be presented to my office
by May 17, 1996. I will then fonA/ard a copy of the information to your office for review
during the week of May 20, 1996.
Thank you for your assistance with this project.
c: Housing and Redevelopment Director
April 30, 1996
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
INQUIRY REGARDING THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 17,
1996
On April 17, 1996, a public hearing was scheduled for the Design Review Board to
consider an application by the Union Oil Company of California requesting permission
to demolish existing work bays and to construct a new express car wash at the
existing Unocal Gas Station at 880 Carlsbad Village Drive. Staff recommended
approval of the project based on the fact that the project meets all applicable
standards.
As a result of comments staff received prior to the public hearing, a supplemental
staff report was prepared and personally delivered to each DRB member on April 16,
1996. This report provided additional information on noise, water usage, traffic,
parking, etc. for the car wash use and made corrections to the previously distributed
resolution recommending approval of the subject project. Staff verbally reviewed this
supplemental information with the DRB during the staff presentation on April 17th but
there were no new conditions proposed by staff at the meeting. During their
discussion on the project, the DRB members proposed some additional conditions to
be placed on the project.
The public hearing ran past 6:00pm which is the starting time for the Planning
Commission; the meeting finally concluded at approximately 6:45pm, Following the
meeting. Chairperson Welshons contacted staff (Debbie Fountain) and indicated that
Planning Commissioner Nielsen was extremely irritated with her for allowing the
meeting to continue after 6:00pm, Chairperson Welshons told staff that she did not
feel that it was fair to the public or the applicant to terminate the public testimony and
stop the meeting immediately at 6:00pm. She wanted to complete the public
testimony and the DRB discussion on the item in order to give specific direction to
staff and the applicant regarding additional project conditions which were desired by
the DRB, She felt that the applicant was being very cooperative and wanted to ensure
that adequate discussion was held prior to terminating the meeting.
Staff and the applicant accepted the direction from the DRB and then the item was
continued to May 1, 1996 for further consideration of additional conditions for the
project. As a side note, following the meeting on April 17th, the applicant requested a
further continuance in order to allow more time for them to complete an analysis of
the noise generated by the car wash and an analysis of the on-site circulation for the
entire project. The applicant wants to provide this information to the DRB before final
action is taken on their project. The project has, therefore, been continued to June 5,
1996,
As a standard practice for a number of years, the Design Review Board has been
scheduled to meet from 5:00pm to 6:00pm, prior to the Planning Commission
meetings, every first and third Wednesday. It is my understanding that this schedule
was established to assist the Planning Commissioners who have been sen/ing on the
Design Review Board. Due to the time constraints for the meeting, there is usually
only one redevelopment project scheduled per DRB meeting. The scheduled hour for
DRB meetings normally allows more than adequate time for a staff presentation,
public testimony and DRB member discussion. However, if there is public, or DRB,
opposition to a project, one hour may not always allow enough time for adequate
project review.
During the discussion with Chairperson Welshons, staff suggested that a change may
need to be made to the DRB meetings in terms of day and time. Chairperson
Welshons was receptive to this change and encouraged staff to pursue it. Staff will be
processing the recommended change in time and day for the DRB meetings following
action by the City Council to make new appointments to the DRB based on the new,
approved membership criteria included as part of the Village Master Plan and Design
Manual, Staff will be processing a request for new appointments to the DRB within the
next month or so.
If you need any additional information, please contact me.
EVAN E. BECKER
c: Community Development Director
0. May Investment Inc.
2945 Harding Street #111
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Phone: 619-729-0925
Fax: 619-729-9278
April 10, 1996
Ms. Kim Welshons
City of Carlsbad
Housing and Redevelopment Department
Design Board
2965 Roosevelt St. Ste. B
Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389
RE: Case File RP 86-7(a)/CDP 95-05
Case Name: Unocal gas Station and Car Wash
Dear Sir:
I just received notification of the proposed Unocal Gas
Station Car Wash.
As owner of the property immediately adjacent to this project, I
am very concerned over various issues that will have a
detrimental affect to my property.
My property is located at 2945 Harding Street. We have a two
story professional office building. Having owned my property for
almost 16 years and retained my office in this building, I can
tell you first hand of the problems that can be anticipated as a
result of allowing a car wash to be built.
TRAFFIC PROBLEMS!
After Carlsbad Village Drive was improved with an island in the
middle of the street, we have experienced a tremendous increase
of traffic now usinc^ Harding Street. Many times, especially, in
the late afternoon, it is difficult to exit on to Harding Street
from our parking lot, due to the heavy traffic now using Harding
Street. Often, the traffic is blocked down to the end of Grand
Street.
Unless, a sympathetic driver allows us to move in front of him,
we find we must wait through several traffic lights before we can
exit our parking lot. Even if we can merge into traffic it is
dangerous. Harding Street has only one lane on each side of the
road. Due to heavy slow moving traffic often impatient drivers
going south towards Carlsbad Village Drive will squeeze between
the stopped traffic and the parking lane to turn right on
Carlsbad Village Drive. It is all ready quite challenging trying
to exit my parking lot. To add additional traffic exiting from
the proposed Car Wash will only increase the problem. The corner
of Carlsbad Village Drive and Harding Street has become an
extremely dangerous busy corner, not just for motorist but for
pedestrians. I'm sure you are already aware of the increase rate
of accidents at this intersection.
We are already experiencing difficulties when entering and
leaving our parking lot. The Harding Street access to Unocal is
only about 50 feet from the intersection. Patrons exiting Unocal
on Harding Street, even now have problems cutting into the
southbound lane. The additional activity from a Car Wash will
cause further confusion to the already heavy traffic on Harding
Street, compounding the traffic problem thus increasing the
percentage of accidents.
With the increase business in the Village, plus the added usage
caused by the train station and Carlsbad Village Drive having
dividers, most Village traffic is now flowing through Harding
Street. Even though Harding Street has only one south bound lane,
it is the most popular thoroughfare to access 1-5 and go
easterly.
In addition to the south bound traffic coming from Grand Street,
we also have the traffic trying to merge on to Harding Street
from the Albertos Mexican Restaurant across the street from my
office, plus those from our office building and Unocal Station.
Adding a Unocal Car Wash will create additional traffic jam to
this busy intersection.
Another problem that we have experienced is motorist zooming
through our parking lot to cut through to the alley behind our
building. They cause inconvenience to our tenants who are trying
to park or pull out of their parking space. Often we find those
unauthorized motorist cutting through our parking lot will
discard their trash on our lot. Car wash patrons that can not
merge into Harding Street traffic will further add to this
problem that is getting out of control. The result is further
congestion, potential exposure to accidents and unfair
maintenance burden to us.
Please note, we have quite a bit of pedestrian traffic which are
senior citizens that have to quickly step aside when outside
motorists speed through our parking lot from Harding Street to
reach the Bank behind us or access the alley or visa versa.
Tenants in our building are cautious and aware of pedestrians
walking on the sidewalk. Without a doubt, Unocal patrons will
have trouble getting on to Harding Street. They will exit through
Carlsbad Village Drive and immediately turn into the alley and
then cut through our lot to merge on to Harding Street.
NOISE FACTOR;
We are very concerned about the noise the car wash will produce.
Noises will rise. We have a professional two story building. The
tenants on the second floor will be getting the increase noises
from the operation of the car wash. The upstairs offices have
windows that open and face the Unocal Station. Since the proposed
car wash is to be built immediately adjacent to our property we
will have noise disturbing problems which we do not presently
have, that will affect our tenancy. Car washes create a definite
loud swishing noise every time the machines are activated. The
powerful vacuum system that will also be available at the car
wash will add to the noise factor. Again, the noises that are
inevitable from the activities of a car wash will rise and will
be very disturbing to tenants in an office environment.
Flooding problems.
My property is at a lower level from the Unocal Gas Station. I am
greatly concerned about the over flow of water flowing on to my
parking lot. Even now, when the gas station is washed down, the
water runs down on to my parking lot. Eventually, the run off
weakens my asphalt, especially through the valley of my paved
parking lot where the water runs down the middle. Recently we had
our parking lot repaired and many of the problems where the
asphalt cracked could be traced and attributed to the constant
run off of water caused when the gas station is washed down.
Even, if the car wash has drains, I am very concerned that the
building housing the car wash will have excess water on the
ground which will overflow to our parking lot creating a more
serious run off problem then we have already experienced when the
gas station is washed down.
Besides the water damage to my parking lot, I am concerned that
the run off water could result in a dangerous situation to my
tenants, visitors and others who may slip when the parking lot is
wet and of the liability to us. Allowing the car wash to be built
where proposed, can be hazardous.
The gas station as presently used does not have a tremendous
amount of traffic and it appears that volume of their business as
a rule is rather slow. A car wash will certainly create a volume"
of activity and alter the entire quiet atmosphere we presently
enjoy. A car wash will create additional traffic that we do not
have from the present operation. A car wash will contribute
noises and spoil the tranquility presently enjoyed by
professionals in our building. This is not a good proposal. I am
surprised that it is exempted from the California Environmental
Quality Act. Cleaning chemicals will be used in the car wash. One
would think that the drainage of these chemicals would have an
added adverse affect from drainage to the ocean and be of
interest to the Environmental control.
The City has put in a lot effort and time to beautify Carlsbad
Village. Carlsbad Village Drive is the main entrance to the
Village. A car wash on the main street to the City would be an
ugly view for new visitors and tourist entering the lovely
atmosphere of our quaint restaurants, stores and businesses.
Along with the business of a car wash there will be lines of cars
people hanging around waiting for their turn, cars being washed
buckets and rags lying around trash from the vehicles. A car was
would not give a good appearance and impression to tourist and
visitors that are so essential to the overall plan of
revitalizing the Village.
We already have a car wash on State Street. If there is need for
another car wash, a location that is not on such a prominent
visible corner which is the gate way to our Village would be more
appropriate to locate a car wash.
It is my opinion and others I have talked to, that a car wash
will be detrimental to the existing type of businesses and have
an adverse affect on the value of our properties. This type of
development seems to be contradictory to what the redevelopment
district is endeavoring to create in the Village area.
Please submit copies of my observations to the various divisions
that will be working on this project. I do hope that my
objections will receive serious consideration by the various
departments involved in the processing of this application.
Yours truly.
Olga May
GRAND AVENUE
LLI
ULI
GC
h-
(/)
O CO DC LU
LL
LL LU
-? Bank
Offjce _^
CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE
Church Parking
UNOCAL GAS STATION AND CAR WASH
I-
ULi
LU
DC
CO
CD
z
Q
DC
X
ffice JJ '
Arco
Gas Station
Project
Site
W4-
N
> E
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1 RP 86-7(A)/CDP
95-05
fit CcfM
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
May 29, 1996
John Murphy
UNOCAL
7 Capobella
Irvine, CA 92714
SUBJECT: RP 86-07(A)/CDP 95-05 - UNOCAL - ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The above referenced project was processing toward a Design Review Board (DRB)
hearing under the project management of Housing and Redevelopment staff.
Planning staff input and involvement included the environmental review aspect of
this project. Initially, a determination of categorical exemption (Class 3 - Replacing
Existing Structures) was made based on the project review up to that point.
Subsequent review and noise analysis by yourself, the applicant, has revealed that
certain noise impacts will occur from the car wash use and appropriate mitigation
will have to be integrated into the project's overall design and final development.
Therefore, this letter serves to formally rescind the earlier determination of
categoncal exemption in light of anticipated noise impacts and corresponding
mitigation measures that will become part of the project. Processing of this project
will now involve a negative declaration (mitigated or standard depending upon the
final assessment of noise impacts and required mitigating measures), which will be
prepared and made a part of the package going to the DRB.
If you have any questions regarding the environmental review aspects of your land
use applications, please contact Eric Munoz at 438-1161, extension 4441.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
MH:EM:bk
c: Debbie Fountain, Housing and Redevelopment
2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-0894
S3l- qSSG
O. May Investment Inc.
2945 Harding Street #111
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Phone: 619-729-0925
Fax: 619-729-9278
April 10, 1996
Ms. Debbie Fountain
City of Carlsbad
Housing and Redevelopment Department
2965 Roosevelt St. Ste. B
Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389
RE: Case File RP 86-7(a)/CDP 95-05
Case Name: Unocal gas Station and Car Wash
Dear Sir:
I just received notification of the proposed Unocal Gas
Station Car Wash.
As owner of the property immediately adjacent to this project, I
am very concerned over various issues that will have a
detrimental affect to my property.
My property is located at 2945 Harding Street. We have a two
story professional office building. Having owned my property for
almost 16 years and retained my office in this building, I can
tell you first hand of the problems that can be anticipated as a
result of allowing a car wash to be built.
TRAFFIC PROBLEMS;
After Carlsbad Village Drive was improved with an island in the
middle of the street, we have experienced a tremendous increase
of traffic now using Harding Street. Many times, especially, in
the late afternoon, it is difficult to exit on to Harding Street
from our parking lot, due to the heavy traffic now using Harding
Street. Often, the traffic is blocked down to the end of Grand
Street.
Unless, a sympathetic driver allows us to move in front of him,
we find we must wait through several traffic lights before we can
exit our parking lot. Even if we can merge into traffic it is
dangerous. Harding Street has only one lane on each side of the
road. Due to heavy slow moving traffic often impatient drivers
going south towards Carlsbad Village Drive will squeeze between
the stopped traffic and the parking lane to turn right on
Carlsbad Village Drive. It is all ready quite challenging trying
to exit my parking lot. To add additional traffic exiting from
the proposed Car Wash will only increase the problem. The corner
of Carlsbad Village Drive and Harding Street has become an
extremely dangerous busy corner, not just for motorist but for
pedestrians. I'm sure you are already aware of the increase rate
of accidents at this intersection.
We are already experiencing difficulties when entering and
leaving our parking lot. The Harding Street access to Unocal is
only about 50 feet from the intersection. Patrons exiting Unocal
on Harding Street, even now have problems cutting into the
southbound lane. The additional activity from a Car Wash will
cause further confusion to the already heavy traffic on Harding
Street, compounding the traffic problem thus increasing the
percentage of accidents.
With the increase business in the Village, plus the added usage
caused by the train station and Carlsbad Village Drive having
dividers, most Village traffic is now flowing through Harding
Street. Even though Harding Street has only one south bound lane,
it is the most popular thoroughfare to access 1-5 and go
easterly.
In addition to the south bound traffic coming from Grand Street,
we also have the traffic trying to merge on to Harding Street
from the Albertos Mexican Restaurant across the street from my
office, plus those from our office building and Unocal Station.
Adding a Unocal Car Wash will create additional traffic jam to
this busy intersection.
Another problem that we have experienced is motorist zooming
through our parking lot to cut through to the alley behind our
building. They cause inconvenience to our tenants who are trying
to park or pull out of their parking space. Often we find those
unauthorized motorist cutting through our parking lot will
discard their trash on our lot. Car wash patrons that can not
merge into Harding Street traffic will further add to this
problem that is getting out of control. The result is further
congestion, potential exposure to accidents and unfair
maintenance burden to us.
Please note, we have quite a bit of pedestrian traffic which are
senior citizens that have to quickly step aside when outside
motorists speed through our parking lot from Harding Street to
reach the Bank behind us or access the alley or visa versa.
Tenants in our building are cautious and aware of pedestrians
walking on the sidewalk. Without a doubt, Unocal patrons will
have trouble getting on to Harding Street. They will exit through
Carlsbad Village Drive and immediately turn into the alley and
then cut through our lot to merge on to Harding Street.
NOISE FACTOR;
We are very concerned about the noise the car wash will produce.
Noises will rise. We have a professional two story building. The
tenants on the second floor will be getting the increase noises
from the operation of the car wash. The upstairs offices have
windows that open and face the Unocal Station. Since the proposed
car wash is to be built immediately adjacent to our property we
will have noise disturbing problems which we do not presently
have, that will affect our tenancy. Car washes create a definite
loud swishing noise every time the machines are activated. The
powerful vacuum system that will also be available at the car
wash will add to the noise factor. Again, the noises that are
inevitable from the activities of a car wash will rise and will
be very disturbing to tenants in an office environment.
Flooding problems.
My property is at a lower level from the Unocal Gas Station. I am
greatly concerned about the over flow of water flowing on to my
parking lot. Even now, when the gas station is washed down, the
water runs down on to my parking lot. Eventually, the run off
weakens my asphalt, especially through the valley of my paved
parking lot where the water runs down the middle. Recently we had
our parking lot repaired and many of the problems where the
asphalt cracked could be traced and attributed to the constant
run off of water caused when the gas station is washed down.
Even, if the car wash has drains, I am very concerned that the
building housing the car wash will have excess water on the
ground which will overflow to our parking lot creating a more
serious run off problem then we have already experienced when the
gas station is washed down.
Besides the water damage to my parking lot, I am concerned that
the run off water could result in a dangerous situation to my
tenants, visitors and others who may slip when the parking lot is
wet and of the liability to us. Allowing the car wash to be built
where proposed, can be hazardous.
The gas station as presently used does not have a tremendous
amount of traffic and it appears that volume of their business as
a rule is rather slow. A car wash will certainly create a volume
of activity and alter the entire quiet atmosphere we presently
enjoy. A car wash will create additional traffic that we do not
have from the present operation. A car wash will contribute
noises and spoil the tranquility presently enjoyed by
professionals in our building. This is not a good proposal. I am
surprised that it is exempted from the California Environmental
Quality Act. Cleaning chemicals will be used in the car wash. One
would think that the drainage of these chemicals would have an
added adverse affect from drainage to the ocean and be of
interest to the Environmental control.
ATMOSPHERE;
The City has put in a lot effort and time to beautify Carlsbad
Village. Carlsbad Village Drive is the main entrance to the
Village. A car wash on the main street to the City would be an
ugly view for new visitors and tourist entering the lovely
atmosphere of our quaint restaurants, stores and businesses.
Along with the business of a car wash there will be lines of cars
people hanging around waiting for their turn, cars being washed
buckets and rags lying around trash from the vehicles. A car was
would not give a good appearance and impression to tourist and
visitors that are so essential to the overall plan of
revitalizing the Village.
We already have a car wash on State Street. If there is need for
another car wash, a location that is not on such a prominent
visible corner which is the gate way to our Village would be more
appropriate to locate a car wash.
We already have a car wash on State Street. If there is need for
another car wash, a location that is not on such a prominent
visible corner which is the gate way to our Village would be more
suitable to locate a car wash.
It is my opinion and others I have talked to, that a car wash
will be detrimental to the existing type of businesses and have
an adverse affect on the value of our properties. This type of
development seems to be contradictory to what the redevelopment
district is endeavoring to create in the Village area.
Please submit copies of my observations to the various divisions
that will be working on this project. I do hope that my
objections will receive serious consideration by the various
departments involved in the processing of this application.
Yours truly.
m
LU
DC
h-co
z
o
CO
DC
LU
LL
LL
UJ
GRAND AVENUE
Bank
5
1^
IX.
CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE
Church Parking
^ «*Arco
mmJLm
I
Gas Station
Project
Site
W4^
N
> E
CITY OF CARLSBAD
UNOCAL GAS STATION AND CAR WASH RP 86-7(A)/CDP
95-05
MARCH 19, 1996
Debbie,
Attached is a copy of the Planning Department's hst of Standard Findings and Conditions.
I recommend using the following conditions, substituting Design Review Board for Planning
Commission/City Council where appropriate:
#'s 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8b, 9, 12, 13, 14, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28 (H & R Director not PD), 29.
Maybe there are additional ones you feel would apply; or maybe you are adding custom
ones.
Thanks, Eric.
4441
CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FINDINGS AND CONDmONS
Findings:
L STANDARD CEQA FINDINGS:
EIR = MEIR, PROJECT EIR, SUPPLEMENTAL EIR, TIERED EIR, FOCUSED EIR
A. Certification-(Public Resources Code 21082.1; Regs. 15090)
i. Completed in compliance with w/CEQA
1. The (City Council/Planning Commission) does hereby find that Final EIR 96- , the
Candidate Findings of Fact, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the
Statement of Overriding Considerations have been prepared in accordance with requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines, and the
Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Carlsbad.
ii. Reviewed and considered by final decisionmaker prior to approving project
2. The (City Council/Planning Commission) of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and
considered Final EIR 96- , the environmental impacts therein identified for this project; the
Candidate Findings of Fact ("Findings" or "CEQA Findings") and the Statement of Overriding
Considerations attached hereto as Attachment ^ ; the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program ("Program") attached hereto as Attachment ; both of which are incorporated
herein by this reference, prior to (approving/recommending approval of) the project.
iii. That EIR reflects decisionmakers Independent Judgment
3. The (City Council/Planning Commission) fmds that Final EIR 96- reflects the independent
judgment of the City of Carlsbad (City Council/Planning Commission).
B. Adoption of CEQA Findings regarding Significance
4. The (City Council/Planning Commission) does hereby (approve/ recommend approval), accept
as its own, incorporate as if set forth in full herein, and make each and every one of the fmdings
contained in the "Candidate Findings of Fact" (Attachment ).
C. NOTE: Adopt Findings regarding Mitigation Measures and Proiect Altematives for
each EIR-identified Significant Effect (one or more) (PR Code 21081; Regs. 15091)
i. Changes or alterations have been reqmred in or incorporated into the project
which mitigate or avoid each significant effect identified in the EIR;
AND/OR
ii. Such changes or alterations are the responsibility of or within the jurisdiction
of another public agency, and have been, or can and should be, adopted by
that agency;
1 Rev. 02/26/96
AND/OR
iii. The following specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations make EIR-identified mitigation measures or project
altematives infeasible; (Specify)
AND
iv. Certain Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted.
5. As is more fully identified and set forth in Final EIR 96- and in the Candidate Findings of
Fact, the (City Council/Planning Commission) hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that the mitigation measures described as
feasible in the above referenced documents, are feasible, and will become binding upon the entity
assigned thereby to implement same.
V. Infeasibility of Altematives (If applicable)
6. As is also noted in the above referenced environmental documents described in the above
subparagraph B, each of the alternatives to the project which were identified as potentially
feasible in Final EIR 96- are found not to be feasible since they could not meet both the
objectives of the project and avoid the identified significant environmental effects through
implementation of feasible mitigation measures for the reasons set forth in said Candidate
Findings of Fact.
D. Adopt Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program-(Public Resources Code
21081.6)
7. As required by the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the (City Council/Planning
Commission) hereby (adopts/recommends adoption of) the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program ("Program") (Attachment ). The (City Council/Planning Commission) hereby
finds that the Program is designed to ensure that during project implementation the developer and
any other responsible parties implement the project components and comply with the feasible
mitigation measures identified in the Candidate Findings of Fact and the Program.
E. Adopt Statement of Overriding Considerations-(Regs. 15093)
8. Even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures and any feasible alternatives, certain
significant or potentially significant environmental effects caused by the project, will remain.
Therefore, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad hereby issues, pursuant to CEQA Guideline
Section 15093, a Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in Attachment identifying
the specific economic, social, and other considerations that render the unavoidable significant
adverse environmental effects acceptable.
F. Specifv location and custodian of "record of proceedings"'(Public Resources Code
21081.6 (d))
9. The Record of Proceedings for this project consists of
which may be found at
in the custody of the City Clerk, Director of Planning, and
Rev, 02/26/96
MITIGATED/NEGATFVE DECLARATION REVIEWED & CONSIDERED/MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
A. Negative Declaration
10. The (City Council/Planning Commission) of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and
considered Negative Declaration ( ), the environmental impacts therein identified for this
project and any comments thereon prior to (approving/reconmiending approval of) the project.
Based on the EIA Part-II and comments thereon, the (City Council/Planning Commission) finds
that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment
and thereby (approves/recommends approval of) the Negative Declaration.
11. The (City Council/Planning Commission) finds that the Negative Declaration ( ) reflects
the independent judgement of the (City Council/Planning Commission) of the City of Carlsbad.
42. Specify the location of Custodian of Record (Same as ttS> for EIR) DELETED 07/03/95 PER
GARY
B. Mitigated Negative Declaration
13. The (City Council/Planning Commission) of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and
considered Mitigated Negative Declaration ( ), the environmental impacts therein
identified for this project and said comments thereon, and the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, on file in the Planning Department, prior to (approving/recommending
approval of) the project. Based on the EIA Part-II and comments thereon, the (City
Council/Planning Commission) finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have
a significant effect on the environment and hereby (approves/recommends approval of) the
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
14. The (City Council/Planning Commission) does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative
Declaration ( ) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared in
accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines,
and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad.
15. The (City Council/Planning Commission) finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration ( )
reflects the independent judgment of the (City Council/Planning Commission) of the City of
Carlsbad.
16. Specify the location of Custodian of Record (Same as #9 for EIR)
SUBSEQUENT PROJECTS - (PRIOR COMPLIANCE)
MEIR-(Public Resources Code 21157.1; Regs. 15169)/EIR
17. a. The Planning Director has found that, based on the EIA Part-II, this Subsequent Project
was described in the MEIR 93-01 as within its scope; AND there will be no additional
significant effect, not analyzed therein; AND that no new or additional mitigation
measures or altematives are required; AND that therefore this Subsequent Project is
within the scope of the prior EIR; and no new environmental document nor Public
Resources Code 21081 findings are required.
Rev. 02/26/96
b. The (City Council/Planning Commission) finds that all feasible mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to this Subsequent
Project have been incorporated into this Subsequent Project.
OTHER
18. (City Council/Planning Commission) finds that:
a. the project is a (type of project described in CEQA Guidelines - 15168(c)(2) and (e),
15180, 15182, or 15183);
b. the project is consistent with the (type of plan or action in the regulations cited above);
c. there was an (EIR or Mitigated/Negative Declaration) (certified or approved) in
connection with the prior (type of Plan of action described in the regulations above);
d. the project has no new significant environmental effect not analyzed as significant in the
prior (EIR or Mitigated/Negative Declaration);
e. none of the circumstances requiring Subsequent or a Supplemental EIR under CEQA
Guidelines Sections 15162 or 15163 exist;
f. (optional) with regard to , the environmental effect of the project would
otherwise be significant, but for the application of standard, which is a uniformly
applied development policy or standard which was adopted in conjunction with the
finding that its application to future projects will substantially mitigate that environmental
effect.
19. The (City Council/Planning Commission) finds that all feasible mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the (Note: insert which prior document is referred to) which
are appropriate to this Subsequent Project have been incorporated into this Subsequent Project.
CEQA EXEMPTIONS - (Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 19.04.070)
20. That the Planning Director has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section of the state CEQA
Guidelines and will not have any adverse significant impact on the environment.
II. GENERAL PLAN AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT FINDINGS:
21. The (City Council/Planning Commission) finds that the project, as conditioned herein for
( ), is in conformance with the Elements of the City's General Plan, based on the
following:
a. Land Use -
b. Circulation -
The project is consistent with the City's General Plan since the proposed density of
du/acre is within the density range of du/acre specified for the site as indicated on
the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is at or below the growth control point of
Rev. 02/26/96
c. Noise -
d. Housing -
That the project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan and the Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance as the Developer has been conditioned to enter into an Affordable Housing
Agreement to provide and deed restrict dwelling units as affordable to lower-
income households.
OR
That the project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan and the Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance as the Developer has been conditioned to pay an inclusionary housing (in-
lieu/impact) fee.
e. Open Space and Conservation -
f. Public safety -
g. Parks and Recreation -
h. Arts -
GENERAL PLAN OPEN SPACE - ADJUSTMENT OF BOUNDARIES OF THE CONCEPTUAL
OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION MAP-(OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT)
22. That the proposed open space area is equal to or greater than the area depicted on the Official
Open Space and Conservation Map.
23. That the proposed open space area is of environmental quality equal to or greater than that
depicted on the Official Open Space and Conservation Map.
24. That the proposed open space, as depicted on the Official Open Space and Conservation Map,
is contiguous or within close proximity to open space as shown on the Official Open Space Map.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT-(SECTION 21.90.040)
25. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the applicable
local facilities management plan, and all City public facility policies and ordinances since:
a. 1. The project has been conditioned to ensure that the final map will not be
approved unless the City Council finds that sewer service is available to serve the
project. In addition, the project is conditioned such that a note shall be placed
on the final map that building permits may not be issued for the project unless
the District Engineer determines that sewer service is available, and building
carmot occur within the project unless sewer service remains available, and the
District Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities
Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to sewer service
for this project.
OR
a. 2. The project has been conditioned to ensure that building permits will not be
issued for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer service
5 Rev. 02/26/96
is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service
remains available, and the District Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of
the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they
apply to sewer service for this project.
Stamtory School fees will be paid to ensure the availability of school facilities in the
School District. The School District has written a letter, dated
, stating that school facilities will be available to this project.
c. Park-in-lieu fees are required as a condition of approval.
d. All necessary public improvements have been provided or are required as conditions of
approval.
e. The developer has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate condition to
pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment of the fee will
enable this body to find that public facilities will be available concurrent with need as
required by the General Plan.
26. The project has been conditioned to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new construction
tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional requirements established by
a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of public facilities and will mitigate any
cumulative impacts created by the project.
27. This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone .
Proiects exceeding the Growth Control Point-(Section 21.90.045):
28. That the project will provide sufficient additional public facilities for the density in excess of the
control point to ensure that the adequacy of the City's public facility plans will not be adversely
impacted, in that
29. That there have been sufficient developments approved in the quadrant at densities below the
control point to offset the units in the project above the control point so that approval will not
result in exceeding the quadrant limit;
30. That all necessary public facilities required by the Growth Management Ordinance will be
constructed or are guaranteed to be constmcted concurrently with the need for them created by
this project and in compliance with adopted City standards, in that
III. SPECIAL FINDINGS:
DENIAL OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING (GOVERNMENT CODE 65589)
Denial of an affordable housing proiect (one (1) or more of these findings is required):
31. That the City has adopted a housing element pursuant to state law and this project is not needed
for the City to meet its share of the regional housing need of low-income housing, in that
32. That the proposed project would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety, and
there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the impact without rendering the
development unaffordable to low and moderate-income households, in that
Rev. 02/26/96
33. That the denial of the project or imposition of conditions is required in order to comply with
(state or federal law), and there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the
development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households, in that
34. That the approval of the project would increase the concentration of lower income households in
a neighborhood that already has a disproportionately high number of lower income households
and there is no feasible method of approving the development at a different site, without
rendering the development unaffordable to low and moderate-income households, in that
35. That the project is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation which is
surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agriculture or resource preservation
purposes, or which does not have adequate water or wastewater facilities to serve the project, in
that
36. That the project is inconsistent with the General Plan land use designation for the property as
specified in the Land Use Element that existed on the date the application was deemed complete,
in that
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS (SECTION 21.70.080)
37. That the agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs
specified in the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, in that
38. That the agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in and the regulations prescribed for
the land use district in which the real property is located and all other provisions of Title 21 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code, in that
39. That the agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land-use
practices, in that
40. That the agreement will not be detrimental to health, safety, and general welfare, in that
41. That the agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the
preservation of property values, in that
42. That the agreement is consistent with the provisions of Government Code Sections 65864.5 -
65869.5, in that
43. That the agreement ensures provisions of public facilities in a marmer consistent with the General
Plan, in that
44. That the agreement is consistent with the provisions of Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code,
in that
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN FOR McCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT (GENERAL
PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT - SPECIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS -AIRPORT)
45. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the McClellan-
Palomar Airport, dated April, 1994, in that (i.e. as conditioned the applicant shall record a notice
concerning aircraft noise, or: the applicant shall record an avigation easement). The project is
compatible with the projected noise levels of the CLUP; and, based on the noise/land use
compatibility matrix of the CLUP, the proposed land use is compatible with the airport, in that
Rev. 02/26/96
HABITAT LOSS - INTERIM LOSS Q E. COASTAL SAGE)
46. That the habitat loss does not cumulatively exceed the 5% guideline established in the Draft
Conservation Guidelines of the Draft Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), in that
47. That the habitat loss will not preclude connectivity between areas of high habitat values, in that
48. That the habitat loss will not preclude or prevent the preparation of the City's Habitat
Management Plan, in that
49. That the habitat loss has been minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable in
accordance with the mitigation established by the NCCP Guidelines, in that
50. That the habitat loss will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of
listed wildlife species in the wild, in that
51. That the habitat loss is incidental to otherwise lawful activities, in that
HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES-(SECTION 21.42.010(6)(H)(i-iii))
NOTE: ALL Conditional Use Permit findings applv IN ADDITION to the following:
52. That the project is consistent with Chapter IX Section C (General Areas), Chapter IX Section B
(Siting Requirements), Appendix IX-B (General Areas), and Appendix IX-A (Siting Criteria) of
the San Diego County Hazardous Waste Management Plan;
LANDSCAPING CONSISTENCY-(SECTION 11.06.025)
53. That the project is consistent with the City's Landscape Manual, adopted by City Council
Resolution No. 90-384.
IV. REQUIRED DISCRETIONARY PERMIT FINDINGS:
ADULT ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT-(SECTION 21.43.080)
54. That the proposed use will not be contrary to the public interest, in that
55. That the proposed use will not be injurious to nearby properties, in that
56. That the proposed use will not encourage the development of an adult entertainment area, in that
57. That the proposed use will not interfere with any program of neighborhood preservation or
revitalization, in that
58. That the proposed use will not interfere with any governmental program of general urban
redevelopment, in that
59. That the proposed use will not be contrary to the spirit and intent of Chapter 21.43 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code, in that
60. That the harm created by the proposed use is outweighed by its benefits, in that
61. That all the applicable regulations and provisions of the Carlsbad Municipal Code will be
observed by the proposed use, in that
Rev. 02/26/96
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT-(SECTION 21.32.020)
62. That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, is
essentially in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, and is not
detrimental to existing uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is
located, in that (Note: This finding is not applicable to 1st Amendment uses, see Section
21.42.020(5))
63. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in that
64. That all the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust the
requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be provided and
maintained, in that
65. That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic
generated by the proposed use, in that
Automobile Service Station (one (1) or more of these findings is required) - (Section 21.42.010(7)(A)
(Him
66. That it is to be developed as part of a master-planned recreation area, industrial park, regional
or community shopping center, in that
67. That it is to be developed as part of a freeway-service facility, containing a minimum of two
freeway oriented uses, in that
68. That it is to be developed as part of a commercial facility that is an integral part of a planned
community development, in that
69. That the service station existed prior to the adoption of the ordinance codified in Chapter 21.42,
(April 14, 1970), therefore, the locational requirements for service stations of Section
21.42.010(7)(A) are not applicable, in that
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT-(SECTION 21.95.030(l)-(6))
70. That hillside conditions have been properly identified on the constraints map which show existing
and proposed conditions and slope percentages;
71. That undevelopable areas of the project, i.e. slopes over 40%, have been properly identified on
the constraints map;
72. That the development proposal is consistent with the intent, purpose, and requirements of the
Hillside Ordinance, Chapter 21.95, in that
73. That the proposed development or grading will not occur in the undevelopable portions of the site
pursuant to provisions of Section 21.53.230 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, in that
74. That the project design substantially conforms to the intent of the concepts illustrated in the
Hillside Development Guidelines Manual, in that
75. That the project design and lot configuration minimizes disturbance of hillside lands, in that
Modifications to Hillside Development and Design Standards - (one (1) or more of these findings must
be made)-(Section 21.95.070):
Rev. 02/26/96
76. That the site has unusual geotechnical or soil conditions that necessitate corrective work that may
require significant amounts of grading, in that
77. That the site requires extensive grading to accommodate a circulation-element roadway, in that
78. That the proposed modification will result in significantly more open space or undismrbed area
than would a strict adherence to the requirements of the ordinance, in that
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT CONSISTENCY
79. That the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment is consistent with all applicable policies
of the ( ) segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, in that
80. That the proposed amendment to the ( ) segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program
is required to ( ).
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ADOPTION OR AMENDMENT-(SECTION
21.90.125(a)(3))
81. That Local Facilities Management Plan (or amendment) for Zone ( ) is consistent with
the Land Use Element, Public Facilities Element, and the other Elements contained in the General
Plan, in that
82. That the Local Facilities Management Plan (or amendment) for Zone ( ) is consistent with
Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Growth Management), and with the Citywide
Facilities and Improvement Plan, in that
83. That Local Facilities Management Plan (or amendment) for Zone and the conditions
contained therein will (continue to) promote the public safety and welfare by ensuring that public
facilities will be provided in conformance with the adopted performance standards and will be
available prior to development occurring, in that
MASTER PLAN-(SECTION 21.38.110(b)(l)-(9))
84. That the proposed development as described by Master Plan ( ) is consistent with the
provisions of the General Plan and any applicable specific plans, in that
85. That all necessary public facilities can be provided concurrent with need and adequate provisions
have been provided to implement those portions of the Capital Improvement Program applicable
to the subject property, in that
86. That the residential and open space portions of the community will constimte an environment of
sustained desirability and stability, and that it will be in harmony with or provide compatible
variety to the character of the surrounding area, and that the sites proposed for public facilities,
such as schools, playgrounds and parks, are adequate to serve the anticipated population and
appear acceptable to the public authorities having jurisdiction thereof, in that
87. That the proposed commercial and industrial uses will be appropriate in area, location, and
overall design to the purpose intended, that the design and development are such as to create an
environment of sustained desirability and stability, and that such development will meet
performance standards established by Title 21, in that
10 Rev. 02/26/96
88. That in the case of institutional, recreational, and other similar nonresidential uses, such
development will be proposed, and surrounding areas are protected from any adverse effects from
such development, in that
89. That the streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate to carry the anticipated
traffic thereon, in that
90. That any proposed commercial development can be justified economically at the location proposed
and will provide adequate commercial facilities of the types needed at such location proposed,
in that
91. That the area surrounding the development is or can be planned and zoned in coordination and
substantial compatibility with the development, in that
92. That appropriate measures are proposed to mitigate any adverse environmental impact as noted
in the adopted Environmental Impact Report for the project, in that
NOLAN/DOLAN
* SEE FINDING 139
NON-RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT-(SECTION 21.47.072)
93. That the granting of this permit will not adversely affect and will be consistent with the City
code, the General Plan, applicable specific plans, master plans, and all adopted plans of the City
and other governmental agencies, in that
94. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary and desirable to provide a service
or facility which will contribute to the general well-being of the neighborhood and community,
in that
95. That such project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons
residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, in
that
96. That the proposed nonresidential planned development meets all of the minimum development
standards of the underlying zone, except for lot area, in that
PANHANDLE LOT IN THE R-l ZONE-(SECTION 21.10.080)
97. That the property carmot be served adequately with a public street without panhandle lots due to
unfavorable conditions resulting from unusual topography, surrounding land development, or lot
configuration, in that
98. That subdivision with panhandle lots will not preclude or adversely affect the ability to provide
full public street access to other properties within the same block of the subject property, in that
99. That the buildable portion of the lot consists of ( ), which meets the requirements of
Section 21.10.080(d)(1) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code;
100. That the front, sides, and rear property lines, for purposes of determining required yards, are as
shown on Exhibit , on file in the Planning Department.
11 Rev. 02/26/96
PLANNED DEVELOP^NT PERMIT & CONDOMINIUM P^^IT-(SECTION 21.45.072(a)
(l)-(9))
101. That the granting of this permit will not adversely affect and will be consistent with Chapter
21.45 of Title 21, the General Plan, applicable specific plans, master plans, and all adopted plans
of the City and other governmental agencies, in that
102. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary and desirable to provide a service
or facility which will contribute to the long-term general well-being of the neighborhood and the
community, in that
103. That such use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing
or working in the vicinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, in that
104. That the proposed Planned Development meets all of the minimum development standards set
forth in Chapter 21.45.090, the design criteria set forth in Section 21.45.080, and has been
designed in accordance with the concepts contained in the Design Guidelines Manual, in that
105. That the proposed project is designed to be sensitive to and blend in with the namral topography
of the site, and maintains and enhances significant namral resources on the site, in that
106. That the proposed project's design and density of the developed portion of the site is compatible
with surrounding development and does not create a disharmonious or disruptive element to the
neighborhood, in that
107. That the project's circulation system is designed to be efficient and well integrated with the
project and does not dominate the project, in that
PLANNED INDUSTRIAL PERMIT-(SECTION 21.34.050(c)(l)-(3))
108. That the site indicated by the Plarmed Industrial Permit is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the proposed use, and all yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, loading,
landscaping and other features required by Chapter 21.34 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, in that
109. That the improvements indicated on the Planned Industrial Permit are located in such a manner
to be related to existing and proposed streets and highways, in that
110. That the improvements as shown on the Plarmed Industrial Permit are consistent with the intent
and purpose of this zone and all adopted development, design and performance standards as set
forth Chapter 21.34 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, in that
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT - EXCEPTIONS TO STANDARDS-(SECTION 21.35.130)
Ul. That the application of certain provisions of Chapter 21.35 would result in practical difficulties
or unnecessary hardships which would make development inconsistent with the general purpose
and intent of the Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment plan, in that
112. That there are exceptional circumstances or conditions unique to the property or the proposed
development which do not generally apply to other property or developments which have the
same standards, restrictions, and controls, in that
113. That the granting of an exception will not be injurious or materially detrimental to the public
welfare, other properties or improvements in the project area, in that
12 Rev. 02/26/96
114. That the granting of an exception will not contradict the standards established in the Village
Design Manual, in that
RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION-(SECTION 20.20.020(d)(l)-(5)/Govemment Code
- 66427.1)
115. That each of the tenants of the proposed (condominium project/community apartment
project/stock cooperative) has received the written notification of intention to convert at least
sixty days prior to the filing of this tentative map. Each such tenant and each person applying
for the rental of a unit in such residential real property has or will have received all applicable
notices and rights now or hereafter required by Chapter 20.20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
or the Subdivision Map Act. Each tenant has received ten days written notification that an
application for a public report will be or has been submitted to the State Department of Real
Estate, and that such report will be available on request;
116. That each of the tenants of the proposed (condominium project/community apartment
project/stock cooperative project) has been or will be given written notification within ten days
• of approval of a final map for the proposed conversion.
117. That each of the tenants of the proposed (condominium project/community apartment
project/stock cooperative project) has been or will be given one hundred-eighty days written
notice of intention to convert prior to termination of tenancy due to the conversion or proposed
conversion;
118. That each of the tenants of the proposed (condominium project/community apartment
project/stock cooperative project) has been or will be given notice of exclusive right to contract
for the purchase of his or her respective units upon the same terms and conditions that such units
will be initially offered to the general public or term more favorable to the tenant;
119. That the owners of the (stock cooperative project/community apartment project) have voted
in favor of such conversion as specified by Government Code Section 66452.10.
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - Q OVERLAY ZONE-(SECTION 21.06.020(b)(l)-(4))
120. That the requested use is properly related to the site, surroundings and environmental settings,
is consistent with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, will not be detrimental
to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the area in which the proposed use is to be
located, and will not adversely impact the site, surroundings or traffic circulation, in that
121. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in that
122. That all yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other feamres necessary to adjust the
requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be provided and
maintained, in that
123. That the street systems serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic
generated by the proposed use, in that
13 Rev. 02/26/96
TENTATIVE MAP-(GOVERNMENT CODE 66412.3, 66473.1, 66473.5, 66474, 66474.4, 66474.6
& TITLE 20, SECTION 20.12.091)
Note; The Planning Commission and City Council should not approve or conditionally approve a
tentative map if they can not make any of the following findings:
124. That the proposed map and the proposed design and improvement of the subdivision as
conditioned, is consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan, any applicable
specific plans. Titles 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and the State Subdivision Map
Act, and will not cause serious public health problems, in that
125. That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since surrounding
properties are designated for development on the General Plan, in that
126. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the site is
adequate in size and shape to accommydate residential development at the density proposed, in
that
127. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements
of record or easements established by court judgment, or acquired by the public at large, for
access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, in that
128. That the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land Conservation Act
of 1965 (Williamson Act);
129. That the design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or namral
heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, in that
130. That the (City Council/Planning Conomission) has considered, in connection with the housing
proposed by this subdivision, the housing needs of the region, and balanced those housing needs
against the public service needs of the City and available fiscal and environmental resources;
131. That the design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, in
that
132. That the discharge of waste from the subdivision will not result in violation of existing California
Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, in that
VARIANCE & ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE-(SECTION 21.50.030(l)-(4) & 21.51.010(2)(a)-(d))
133. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property
or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same
vicinity and zone, in that
134. That the requested variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied to
the property in question, in that
135. That the granting of this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is
located, in that
136. That the granting of this variance will not adversely affect the General Plan, in that
14 Rev. 02/26/96
ZONE CHANGE
137. That the proposed Zone Change from (_ JtoC _) is consistent with the goals and
policies of the various elements of the General Plan, in that
138. That the Zone Change will provide consistency between the General Plan and Zoning as
mandated by California State law and the City of Carlsbad General Plan Land Use Element, in
that
NOLAN/DOLAN
139. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to
mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the degree of
the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
15 Rev. 02/26/96
STANDARD CONDITION?
PLANNING CONDITIONS
Staff Application of the Standard Conditions
.) All discretionary development projects must include, at a minimum the following conditions -
(#1, #2, #3, #4, #6 if Coastal Zone, #8a, b or c, #9, #12, #14 if applicable, #16 if applicable,
#18, #25).
All discretionary residential projects must include all the applicable conditions listed above in A),
in addition to the following conditions - (#5, #7 if applicable, #10, #13, #29, #31, #32, #46 &
#47 or #48).
The remaining conditions should be applied to specific development projects on a case by case
basis depending on the namre of the project and a need for the condition.
Approval
1. The (City Council/Planning Commission/Planning Director) does hereby approve the
for the project entitled " ". (Exhibit on file in the Planning
Department and incorporated by this reference, dated , 199_), subject to the conditions
herein set forth. Staff is authorized and directed to make or require the Developer to make all
corrections and modifications to the Documents, as necessary to make them internally
consistent and conform to (City Council's/Planning Commission's/Planning Director's) final
action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved exhibits.
Any proposed development substantially different from this approval, shall require an amendment
to this approval.
THIS CONDITION GOES AT THE END OF ALL CONDITIONS AND BEFORE STANDARD
CODE REMINDERS
General;
If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented
and maintained over time; if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained
according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein
granted; deny or further condition issuance of all fumre building permits; deny, revoke or further
condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted;
instimte and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages
for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the
City's approval of this (Resolution/Ordinance).
The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local ordinances
in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
Maps and Exhibits
The Developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24" x 36", mylar copy of the
(Tentative Map/Site Plan) as approved by the final decision making body. The (Tentative
Map/Site Plan) shall reflect the conditions of approval by the City. The (Map/Plan) copy shall
be submitted to the City Engineer and approved prior to building, grading, final map, or
improvement plan submittal, whichever occurs first.
16 Rev. 02/26/96
5. The Developer shall provide the Plarming Director with a 500' scale mylar of the subdivision
prior to the recordation of the final map. Said map shall show all lots and streets within and
adjacent to the Project. DELETED PER MICHAEL HOLZMILLER (2-13-96)
6. The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan check, a reduced,
legible version of the approving (resolution/resolutions) on a 24" x 36" blueline drawing. Said
blueline drawing(s) shall also include a copy of any applicable Coastal Development Permit and
signed approved site plan.
Facilities & Services
7. The final map shall not be approved unless the City Council finds as of the time of such approval
that sewer service is available to serve the subdivision.
8. a Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the
District Engineer determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of application
for such sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of occupancy. A note
to this effect shall be placed on the final map.
OR
b. Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the
District Engineer determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of application
for such sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of occupancy.
OR
c. Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless
assurances of the availability of sewer facilities have been given by the in
writing.
9. The Developer shall pay the public facilities fee adopted by the City Council on July 28, 1987
(amended July 2, 1991) and as amended from time to time, and any development fees established
by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code or other
ordinance adopted to implement a growth management system or Facilities and Improvement Plan
and to fulfill the subdivider's agreement to pay the public facilities fee dated , a
copy of which is on file with the City Clerk and is incorporated by this reference. If the fees are
not paid, this application will not be consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project
will be void.
10. The Developer shall provide proof of payment of statutory school fees to mitigate conditions of
overcrowding as part of the building permit application. The amount of these fees shall be
determined by the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit application.
11. Prior to approval of a final map or the issuance/approval of a building permit, which ever occurs
first, the Developer shall submit evidence to the Plarming Director that impacts to school facilities
have been mitigated in conformance with the City's Growth Management Plan to the extent
permitted by applicable state law. If the mitigation involves a financing scheme such as a Mello-
Roos Community Facilities District which is inconsistent with the City's Growth Management
Plan, including City Council Policy Statement No. 38, the Developer shall disclose to fumre
owners in the project, to the maximum extent possible, the existence of the tax and that the
school district is the taxing agency responsible for the financing district. (NOTE; This
condition applies to the Zone 20 Specific Plan, and the Calavera Hills Master Plan)
17 Rev. 02/26/96
12. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required as part
of the Zone Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior
to the issuance of building permits, including, but not limited to the following:
a) (List any relevant special LFMP conditions from the plan)
b) etc.
General Conditions
13. If any condition for constmction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment of any
fees in lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this residential housing
project are challenged this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section
66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid unless
the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with all requirements
of law.
14. Approval of is granted subject to the approval of . is subject
to all conditions contained in for the .
NEW PLANNING CONDITION NO. 53
15. This Conditional Use Permit is granted for a period of years. This Conditional Use
Permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Director on a yearly basis to determine if all conditions
of this permit have been met and that the use does not have a substantial negative effect on
surrounding properties or the public health and welfare. If the Planning Director determines that
the use has such substantial negative effects, the Planning Director shall recommend that the
Planning Commission, after providing the permittee the opportunity to be heard, add additional
conditions to reduce or eliminate the substantial negative effects. This permit may be revoked
at any time after a public hearing, if it is found that the use has a substantial detrimental effect
on surrounding land uses and the public's health and welfare, or the conditions imposed herein
have not been met. This permit may be extended for a reasonable period of time not to exceed
years upon written application of the permittee made no less than 90 days prior to the
expiration date. The Planning Commission may not grant such extension, unless it finds that
there are no substantial negative effects on surrounding land uses or the public's health and
welfare. If a substantial negative effect on surrounding land uses or the public's health and
welfare is found, the extension shall be denied or granted with conditions which will eliminate
or substantially reduce such effects. There is no limit to the number of extensions the Plarming
Commission may grant.
16. The Developer shall report, in writing, to the Planning Director within 30 days, any address
change from that which is shown on the conditional use permit application.
17. The Developer shall establish a homeowner's association and corresponding covenants, conditions
and restrictions. Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior
to final map approval.
18. Prior to the issuance of the , Developer shall submit to the City
a Notice of Restriction to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction
of the Plaiming Director, notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the City
of Carlsbad has issued a(n) by Resolution No. on the real property
owned by the developer. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description, location
of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as any
conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The Plarming
19 Rev. 02/26/96
Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice which modifies or
terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the developer or successor in interest.
19. This approval shall be null and void if the project site subject to this approval is not annexed to
City of Carlsbad CFD No. 1 within 60 days of the approval. The City shall not issue any
grading, building, or other permit, until the annexation is completed. The City Manager is
authorized to extend the 60 days, for a period not to exceed , upon a showing of good
cause.
Specific Onsite Conditions
20. Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a six-foot high masonry wall with gates pursuant to
City standards. Location of said receptacles shall be approved by the Planning Director.
Enclosure shall be of similar colors and/or materials to the project to the satisfaction of the
Planning Director.
21. All visitor parking spaces shall be striped a different color than the assigned resident parking
• spaces and shall be clearly marked as may be approved by the Planning Director.
22. An exterior lighting plan including parking areas shall be submitted for Plarming Director
approval. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent
homes or property.
23. No outdoor storage of material shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief. In such
instance a storage plan will be submitted for approval by the Fire Chief and the Plaiming
Director.
24. The Developer shall provide a minimum of 25 percent of the lots with adequate sideyard area for
Recreational Vehicle storage pursuant to City Standards. The CC&Rs shall prohibit the storage
of recreational vehicles in the required front yard setback.
Landscape
25. The Developer shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan in conformance with the
approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City's Landscape Manual. The plans shall be
submitted to and approval obtained from the Plarming Director prior to the approval of the final
map, grading permit, or building permit, whichever occurs first. The Developer shall construct
and install all landscaping as shown on the approved plans, and maintain all landscaping in a
healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris.
26. The Developer shall prepare and submit a master site plan of the existing onsite trees to the
Planning Director as part of the final grading plan to determine which trees shall be required to
be preserved prior to the issuance of a grading permit or a building permit, whichever occurs
first. Existing onsite trees shall be retained wherever possible and shall be trimmed as needed.
Dead, decaying or potentially dangerous trees shall be approved for removal at the discretion of
the Planning Director during the review of the master site plan. Those trees which are approved
for removal shall be replaced on a tree-for-tree basis, and all mamre trees shall be replaced with
minimum 36" box specimens.
27. The first submittal of detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be accompanied by the project's
building, improvement, and grading plans.
20 Rev. 02/26/96
Signs and Identification
28. The Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of a uniform sign program for
this development prior to occupancy of any building.
29. Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings so as
to be plainly visible from the street or access road; color of identification and/or addresses shall
contrast to their background color.
30. Prior to occupancy of any units, the developer shall constmct a directory sign at the entrance to
the project. The design of this sign shall be approved by the Planning Director.
Miscellaneous Planning Conditions
31. The Developer shall provide bus stops to service this development at locations and with
reasonable facilities to the satisfaction of the North County Transit District and the Planning
Director. Said facilities, if required, shall at a minimum include a bench, free from advertising,
and a pole for the bus stop sign. The bench and pole shall be designed to enhance or be
consistent with the basic architecmral theme of the project.
32. The Developer shall display a current Zoning and Land Use Map in the sales office at all times,
or suitable altemative to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
33. All sales maps that are distributed or made available to the public shall include but not be limited
to trails, future and existing schools, parks, and streets.
34. This project is being approved as a condominium permit for residential homeownership purposes.
If any of the units in the project are rented, the minimum time increment for such rental shall be
not less than 26 days. The CC&Rs for the project shall include this requirement.
35. Area of the (Master Plan/Specific Plan) is reserved for daycare uses/churches.
Any other use of this area is prohibited without an amendment to this (master plan/specific plan).
Contingencv Permits/Other Agencies
36. Prior to approval of the , the Developer shall receive approval of a Coastal
Development Permit issued by the California Coastal Commission that substantially conforms to
this approval. A signed copy of the Coastal Development Permit must be submitted to the
Plarming Director. If the approval is substantially different, an amendment to shall
be required.
37. Prior to approval of the final map, the Developer shall be required: (1) to consult with the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding the impact of the project on the
Coastal California Gnatcatcher; and, 2) obtain any permits required by the USWFS.
Environmental
38. The Developer shall diligently implement, or cause the implementation of, all mitigation measures
identified in the Final EIR that are found by this resolution to be feasible.
39. The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
21 Rev. 02/26/96
40. The Developer,^^their successors in interest, shall improv^^e project Site with the project as
described in the Final EIR , except as modified by this resolution.
41. Paleontology:
a. Prior to any grading of the project site, a paleontologist shall be retained to perform a
walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans to determine if the proposed
grading will impact fossil resources. A copy of the paleontologist's report shall be
provided to the Planning Director prior to issuance of a grading permit;
b. A qualifled paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the site and
to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils present in the
geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for laboratory processing
through fine screens. The paleontologist shall make periodic reports to the Planning
Director during the grading process;
c. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an exposed
fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts;
d. All fossils collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit instimtion with a research
interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Namral History Museum;
e. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of the
project shall be resolved by the Planning Director and City Engineer.
42. Prior to the recordation of the first final (tract/parcel) map or the issuance of building permits,
whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property may
be subject to noise impacts from the proposed or existing Transportation Corridor, in a form
meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney (see Noise Form #1 on file in
the Planning Department).
AND/OR
43. Prior to the recordation of the first final (tract/parcel) map or the issuance of building permits,
whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property is
subject to overflight, sight, and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palomar Airport, in
a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and the City Attorney (see Noise, Form
#2 on file in the Plarming Department).
AND/OR
44. The Developer shall post aircraft noise notification signs in all sales and/or rental offices
associated with the new development. The number and locations of said signs shall be
approved by the Planning Director (see Noise Form #3 on file in the Planning
Department).
AND/OR
45. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Developer shall record an Avigation Easement for the
property to the County of San Diego and file a copy of the recorded document with the Planning
Director.
22 Rev. 02/26/96
Housing
46. Prior to the approval of the final map for any phase of this project, or where a map is not being
processed, prior to the issuance of building permits for any lots or units, the Developer shall
enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City to provide and deed restrict
dwelling units (including: Units on Lots ) as affordable to lower-income households
for the useful life of the dwelling units, in accordance with the requirements and process set forth
in Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The draft Affordable Housing Agreement
shall be submitted to the Planning Director not later than . The recorded Affordable
Housing Agreement shall be binding on all future owners and successors in interest.
47. The Developer shall constmct the required inclusionary units concurrent with the project's market
rate units, unless both the final decision making authority of the City and the Developer agree
within an Affordable Housing Agreement to an alternate schedule for development.
48. Prior to the issuance of building permits, or prior to the approval of a final map and/or issuance
of certificate of compliance for the conversion of existing apartments to air-space condominiums,
the Developer shall pay to the City an inclusionary housing (in-lieu/impact) fee as an individual
fee on a per market rate dwelling unit basis.
Housing - Non-residential
49.
Open Space and Trails
50. The Developer shall dedicate on the final map, an open space easement for those portions of lots
which are (in slopes, wetlands, coastal sage scrub, or other constrained land plus all other
lands set aside as part of the Citywide Open Space System) in their entirety to prohibit any
encroachment or development, including but not limited to fences, walls, decks, storage
buildings, pools, spas, stairways, and landscaping, other than that approved as part of (the
grading plan, improvement plans, biological revegetation program, landscape plan, etc.) as shown
on Exhibit .
51. Removal of native vegetation and development of Open Space Lot(s) , including but not
limited to fences, walls, decks, storage buildings, pools, spas, stairways, and landscaping, other
than that approved as part of (the grading plan, improvement plans, biological revegetation
program, landscape plan, etc.) as shown on Exhibit , is specifically prohibited, except
upon written order of the Carlsbad Fire Department for fire prevention purposes, or upon written
approval of the Planning Director, and (California Coastal Commission if in Coastal Zone), based
upon a request from the Homeowners Association accompanied by a report from a qualified
arborist/botanist indicating the need to remove specified trees and/or plants because of disease
or impending danger to adjacent habitable dwelling units. For areas containing native vegetation
the report required to accompany the request shall be prepared by a qualified biologist.
52. Prior to approval of the final map, the Developer shall provide an irrevocable offer of dedication
to the City of Carlsbad for a trail easement for trail(s) shown on the (i.e. Tentative Map) within
Open Space Lot(s) ). If the City of Carlsbad accepts dedication of the trail easement
the City shall assume responsibility for maintenance and liability. If the City of Carlsbad does
not accept liability and maintenance responsibility for the Citywide Trail System, prior to
recordation of the final map, the Developer will not be required to constmct the trail(s).
23 Rev. 02/26/96
53. This project sha^omply with all conditions and mitigation ^fesures which are required as part
of the approved (Neg Dec, CT, SDP, PUD, etc.), as contained in (Planning Commission/City
Council) Resolution No(s) ^
a. (List any relevant important LFMP conditions from the plan)
b. etc.
24 Rev. 02/26/96
STANDARD CODE REMINDERS
Staff Application of Code Reminders
A) In the past, the following items were applied to projects in the form of Standard Conditions.
They have now been moved to this new section of the form entitled "Standard Code Reminders"
because they reiterate requirements that are already adopted and codified as part of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code or other applicable ordinances. The Planning Department's use of these Code
Reminders has evolved through practical application in approving and implementing development
projects. The Code Reminders emphasize and highlight important requirements and this
information has been useful to the Planning Commission, Developer, and Staff.
B) When a Code Reminder is applicable to a specific project or permit, it should be placed at the
end of ALL CONDITIONS of the resolution in a separate section entitled "Code Reminders".
To ftirther qualify the Code Reminder section of the resolution, a note should be added stating
that: "The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not
limited to the following code requirements."
Fees
1. The Developer shall pay park-in-lieu fees to the City, prior to the approval of the final map as
required by Chapter 20.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
2. The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Final Map Notes
3. The Developer shall provide the following note on the final map of the subdivision and final
mylar of this development submitted to the City:
"Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code establishes a Growth Management Control Point
for each General Plan land use designation. Development cannot exceed the Growth Control
Point except as provided by Chapter 21.90. The land use designation for this development is
. The Growth Control Point for this designation is dwelling units per
nonconstrained acre.
Parcels were used to calculate the intensity of development under the General Plan and
Chapter 21.90. Subsequent redevelopment or resubdivision of any one of these parcels must also
include parcels under the General Plan and Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code."
4. The following note shall be placed on the Final Map: "Prior to issuance of a building permit for
any buildable lot within the subdivision, the Developer shall pay a one-time special development
tax in accordance with the City Council Resolution No. 91-39."
General
This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this project within
18 months from the date of project approval.
25 Rev. 02/26/96
6. The Developer shall give all notices of the condominium conversion to all tenants as required by
the Subdivision Map Act and the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
7. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the Zoning
Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building permit issuance,
except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
8. The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements pursuant to
Title 24 of the State Building Code.
9. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and
concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in substance
as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the Directors of
Planning and Building.
10. The Developer shall submit a street name list consistent with the City's street name policy subject
to the Planning Director's approval prior to final map approval.
11. Compact parking spaces shall be located in large groups, and in locations clearly marked to the
satisfaction of the Planning Director.
12. Prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit the Developer shall provide all required passive and
active recreational areas per the approved plans, including landscaping and recreational facilities.
Landscape
13. All landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared to conform with the Landscape Manual and
submitted per the landscape plan check procedures on file in the Planning Department.
Signs
14. Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance with
the City's Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the Planning Director prior
to installation of such signs.
26 Rev. 02/26/96
PRELIMINARY REVIEW REQUEST
Date: March 18, 1996
Planning Department Water District
Engineering Department Landscape Plancheck
Consultant
Police Department School District
Building Department North County Transit District
Community Services Department Fire Department
To Department:
The Housing and Redevelopment Department is preparing to draft the Design
Review Board report for approval of the new Unocal proiect (reorientation of
canopies & pumps and construction of new can/vash to replace existing work bays)
on Carlsbad Village Drive. Would you please review the attached plans and let me
know what conditions you would like placed on the project. Please submit your
conditions to the Housing and Redevelopment Department, Attn: Debbie Fountain
bv March 29. 1996.
Thank you for your assitance.
Project Title:
Applicant:
UNOCAL STATION #7263
Union Oil Company of California
Brief Description of Proposal: Construction of a new express carwash &
reorientation of, and new, canopies and gas
pumps (w/credit card readers) and new
landscaping.
Assigned staff member: Debbie Fountam
Comments:
Citv of Carlsbad
Housing & Redevelopment Department
January 10, 1996
PHILIP M. DEDGE
UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA
17700 CASTLETON STREET, #500
CITY OF INDUSTRY, CA. 91748
RE: RP 86-7(A)/CDP 95-05, UNOCAL STATION NO. 7263, CARLSBAD
VILLAGE DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CA.
Dear Mr. Dedge:
Thank you for applying for a Land Use Permit in the City of Carlsbad, The Housing
and Redevelopment Department, assisted by other appropriate city departments, has
reviewed your Major Redevelopment Permit (86-7) Amendment and Coastal
Development Permit (95-5) Applications as submitted on December 11, 1995 to
determine their completeness for further processing.
The applications have been deemed complete, as submitted, for further processing
purposes. Although the initial processing of your application may have already begun,
the technical acceptance date is acknowledged by the date of this correspondence.
The City may, in the course of processing your applications, request that you clarify,
amplify, correct or otherwise supplement the basic information required for this
application. In addition, you should also be aware that there are still issues/concerns
on your application which will require resolution before the applications can be
scheduled for a public hearing before the Design Review Board, The issues/concerns
related to your applications are outlined on the attachment to this correspondence.
The formal processing of your applications begins as of the date of this
correspondence.
Please contact my office at (619) 434-2935 if you have any questions or wish to set
up a meeting to discuss the application.
Sincerely,
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
Senior Management Analyst
c: Gary Wayne Bobbie Hoder Jim Davis Data Entry
Eric Munoz Bob Wojcik File Copy Harry Ericson, Consultant
2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (619) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (619) 720-2037 ^
RP 86-07(A)/CDP 95-05
UNOCAL STATION #7263
EXPRESS CAR WASH AND NEW CANOPY
The following comments are provided as issues of concern with the subject project
which must be resolved, and/or additional information which must be provided, before
the project is presented to the Design Review Board for action :
1. The plans for the project must be revised to show all existing and proposed
landscaping in all of the planter areas on the site.
2, The design/architecture of the building and canopy must be consistent with the
new Village Design Guidelines which have been previously provided to the
applicant. The design/architecture demonstrated on the plans submitted on
December 11, 1995 is not acceptable. It is suggested that the applicant review
the Village Design Guidelines and revise the design for the building/canopy
accordingly. The applicant may wish to then meet with staff to discuss the
design before resubmitting the plans for further processing. The project site is
highly visible and located within the entryway to the Village. Therefore, it is
critical that the design be exceptional in order to gain approval from the City, A
standard looking can^/ash building will not be able to gain approval due to the
location of the site,
3, The elevations will need to indicate the colors and materials to be used on the
building. Also, a materials board needs to be submitted to the City for review
and consideration.
4. As an additional note, at the time this project is scheduled for a public hearing,
the applicant must submit a colored artist rendering of the project as well as a
colored site plan for presentation purposes. The applicant will not be required
to submit these items, however, until the final design has been deemed
acceptable by City Staff and the project is ready to be presented to the Design
Review Board.
PRODUCTS COMPANY
September 5, 1995
Ms. Deborah K. Fountain
Senior Management Analyst
Housing & Redevelopment Department
City ofCarlsbad
2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B
Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389
Subject: Proposed Unocal Car Wash
Carlsbad Village Drive and Harding Street, Carlsbad
Dear Ms. Fountain:
Thank you for meeting with us to discuss this project. As a result ofthat meeting, we are
presenting the accompanying information for your review.
Unocal has given a great deal of consideration to the operation of the car wash and the
related traffic pattems. The result ofthis process is reflected in the design shown on the
accompanying site plans.
Thank you for your help in bringing this project to completion.
Sincerely,
Harry Ericson
Project Manager
Enclosures
uncarls.doc
1 7700 Castleton Street, Suite 500
City of Industry, California 91748
PH (81 8) 854-7038
A Unocal Company
City of Carlsbad
Housing & Redevelopment Department
November 16, 1995
HARRY ERICSON
3328 ALABAMA CIRCLE
COSTA MESA, CA. 92626
RE: UN(X:AL STATION/CARWASH ADDmON - HARDING AND
CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNL\
Dear Harry:
Attached are comments I received from the Engineering Department on the third design
option presented by Unocal recently for a new carwash at the gas station site located on the
northwest comer of Harding Street and Carlsbad Village Drive within the Village
Redevelopment Area of the City of Carlsbad. Based on the comments I have received from
both the City's Engineering and Planning Departments, it appears that Unocal will be able to
add the carwash and maintain the appropriate standards applied to such uses within the City
of Carlsbad. Please review the comments provided by the Engineering Department; these
issues must be addressed in the final plans submitted with an application for review by the
City of Carlsbad and the Redevelopment Agency. Enclosed please fmd a copy of your site
plan with comments (redlined) from the Engineering Department.
From the Redevelopment Department's perspective, the carwash use is acceptable and meets
existing land use designations for the area. We are also supportive of the proposed change in
orientation of the gas pumps and canopy. In terms of design for the carwash, special
attention must be given to design a building which is consistent with a "Village" character.
Enclosed are copies of design guidelines from the new Village Master Plan and Design
Manual which may be helpful to Unocal as efforts begin to finalize plans for the new
carwash.
Enclosed is a copy of the application for the required Major Redevelopment Permit and
Coastal Development Permit for the proposed carwash and site hnprovements for the Unocal
station. The checklist attached to the application provides details on the documents which
must be submitted with the application and the information requu-ed on the final site plan and
elevations for the project. The application and all related materials must be submitted directly
to the Community Development Department, located at 2075 Las Pahnas Drive in Carlsbad,
with appropriate fees.
2965 Roosevelt St., Ste. B • Carlsbad, CA 92008-2389 • (619) 434-2810/2811 • FAX (619) 720-2037
H. ERICSON
November 16, 1995
Page 2
If you have any additional conmients or questions regarding the proposed Unocal project or
would like to receive preliminary comments on the design of the carwash building prior to
submission of the formal development application, please do not hesitate to contact my office
at (619) 434-2935.
Sincerely,
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
Senior Management Analyst
November 9, 1995
TO: DEBBIE FOUNTAIN, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST
FROM: Associate Engineer
VIA: Principal Land Use Engineer /^^^ ^
PRELIMINARY REVIEW - UNOCAL ON CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE
The Engineering Department offers the following comments:
1. Those portions of the existing driveways on Carisbad Village Drive that front the planter
area will have to be modified to sidewalk.
2. Within the gasoline bays, a minimum 12' width clear of curbs and other obstructions,
should be provided on each side of the pumps. It is unclear on the plan as to the
location of the curb line for the gas pumps, as these are usually installed on a raised
island structure.
3. As noted on the site plan, there is inadequate space for a vehicles to turn out of some of
the gasoline bays. For adequate turning space, a clear distance of 24' should be
provided between the end of the parking spaces and the front of a vehicle within the
jaafktno'bay.
4. The planter at the drive through entrance should be extended to match the end of the
planter on the opposite side, and the driveway should be modified accordingly.
5. Please note that the following is a condition of approval for service stations:
The area under the fuel canopy shall be constructed of concrete and shall be designed
to drain to a sump drain located under the canopy. A sump pump shall be installed to
pump the effluent from the canopy area up into a holding tank. The holding tank shall
be located within a self-contained area. The effluent from the holding tank may be
considered "Hazardous Waste" and shall be disposed of as required by law. The
owner/operator of the business shall maintain records of the legal disposal of the
"Hazardous Waste" and shall produce them upon demand. The final design of this
collection facility shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Please forward the red-lined check print to the applicant. If you have questions regarding any
of the comments above, please contact me at extension 4380.
KENNETH W. QUON
Associate Engineer
H;..\QUON\PRELIMR\AUNOCAL.MEM
November 2, 1995 NOV fl 2 1SS5
TO: KEN QUON, ENGINEERD^G
FROM: DEBBIE FOUNTAIN, HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
UNOCAL STATION ON NORTHWEST CORNER OF CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE
AND HARDING STREET
The Unocal Company has submitted another site plan for our consideration related to their
proposed new carwash on the site. Can you take a look at this revised plan and let me know
what you think? Will it meet engineering standards?
Thanks!
r
December 20, 1995
TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
FROM: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
RP 86-7(A)/CDP 95-05 - UNOCAL CAR WASH
The application for an amendment to the Unocal Gas Station RP/CUP was submitted on
December 11, 1995. I will need to prepare and forward an application complete/incomplete
letter by January 11, 1996. I am assuming that your department received a copy of the
application and related documents and is in the process of reviewing them.
Please forward your comments regarding the completeness of the application and/or any
issues you may have identified for the project to my office no later dian January 8, 1996.
Thanks for your help.
DEBBIE FOUNTAIN
Senior Management Analyst