Loading...
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