Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 96-03; Unocal Gas Station & Car Wash; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (3)CASE NO. DATE: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I (To be Completed by APPLICANT) Applicant: PHILLIP DEDGE, UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, dba UNOCAL Address of Applicant: 17700 CASTLETON STREET, STE. 500 CITY OF INDUSTRY, CA 91748 Phone Number: f 818 ) 854-7096 Name, addr Applicant) Name, address and phone number of person to be contacted (\f other than : JIM TABB, HOLMES & NARVER, INC. (714) 567-2440 GENERAL INFORMATION: (Please be specific) Project Description: THE PROPOSED PROJECT CONSISTS OF CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW EXPRESS CAR WASH AND RELATED SITE DEVELOPMENTS INCLUDING PAVING, PARKING, AND LANDSCAPE AREAS. Project Location/Address: 880 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE, CARLSBAD,' CA Assessor Parcel Number: 203 . 354 . 16 General Plan/Zone of Subject Property: VR Local Facilities Management Zone: ^_ Is the site within Carlsbad's Coastal Zone? I£l Please describe the area surrounding the site to the North: OFFICES East: ARCO GAS STATION South: CHURCH West: List all other applicable permits & approvals related to this project (Please be Specific. Attach Additional Pages or Exhipits, if necessary) 1. Please describe the project site, including distinguishing natural and manmade characteristics. Also provide precise slope analysis when a slope of 15' or higher and 15% grade or greater is present on the site. THE SITE HAS EXISTING DEVELOPMENT CURRENTLY SERVICING THE COMMUNITY. IT IS GENERALLY FLAT WITH A 1% SLOPE TO THE SOUTH. A BUILDING WITH 2 SERVICE BAYS AND OFFICE ALONG WITH FUEL PUMPS AND CANOPY CURRENTLY OCCUPY THE PROPERTY. 2. Please describe energy conservation measures incorporated into the design and/or operation of the project. NOT APPLICABLE 3. PLEASE AHACH A PROJECT SUMMARY SHEET UHICH SHOWS THE FOLLOWING: a. If a residential project identify the number of units, type of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected, average daily traffic generation (latest SANDAG rates). NOT APPLICABLE b. If a commercial project, indicate the exact type, activity(ies), square footage of sales area, average daily traffic generation (latest SANDAG rates), parking provided, and loading facilities. THE PROPOSED EXPRESS CAR WASH WILL PROVIDE AN ANCILLARY SERVICE TO SUPPLEMENT EXISTING GASOLINE SALES TO CURRENT CUSTOMERS. FOUR PARKING SPACES ARE PROVIDED FOR EMPLOYEE'S AND CUSTOMER'S USAGE. c. If an industrial project, indicate the exact type or industry(ies), average daily traffic generation (latest SANDAG rates), estimated employment per shift, time of shifts, and loading facilities. NOT APPLICABLE d. If an institutional project, indicate the major project/site function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project. NOT APPLICABLE I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS Please Answer each of the following questions by placing a check in the appropriate space. Then, fully discuss and explain why each item was checked yes or no. Provide supporting data if applicable. Attach additional sheets as necessary. YES NO 3) Could the activity affect the functioning of an established community or neighborhood? EXPLANATION: THIS PROJECT IS PROPOSING TO ENHANCE USE AND TO IMPROVE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND GENERAL WELFARE OF PERSONS RESIDING'AND WORKING IN THE VICINITY BY PROVIDING A BETTER ENVlildNMfiOT. X 1) Could the project significantly impact or change present or future land uses in the vicinity of the activity? EXPLANATION: THE PRIMARY AND CONTINUED USE OF THE FACILITY WILL BE THE SALE OF AUTOMOTIVE FUELS. THE ADDITION OF THE CAR WASH ALLOWS FOR INCREASED SERVICES TO THE COMMUNITY. 2) Could the activity affect the use of a recreational area, or area of aesthetic value? ^ EXPLANATION: THIS PROJECT ENHANCES THE APPEARANCE OF THE SITE. X 4) Could the activity result in the displacement of community residents? x_ EXPLANATION: THERE ARE CURRENTLY NO RESIDENTS ON THE SITE. YES NO 5) Could the activity increase the number of low and moderate cost housing units in the city? EXPLANATION: NOT APPLICABLE 6) Could the activity significantly affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? EXPLANATION: NOT APPLICABLE 7) Are any of the natural or man-made features in the activity area unique, that is, not found in other parts of the county, state or nation? ^ EXPLANATION: NOT APPLICABLE 8) Could the activity significantly affect an historical or archaeological site or its settings? £ EXPLANATION: THERE ARE NO EVIDENCE OF ANY HISTORICAL OR ARCHEOLOGICAL ISSUES RELATING TO THIS SITE. 9) Could.the activity significantly affect the potential use, extraction, or conservation of a scarce natural resource? £ EXPLANATION: THE NEW PROPOSED ACTIVITY IS AN AMINITY TO THE EXISTING USE ONLY. YES NO 10) Could the activity significantly affect fish, wildlife or plant resources? EXPLANATION: NOT APPLICABLE 11) Are there any rare or endangered plant or animal species in the activity area? EXPLANATION: NOT APPLICABLE 12) Could the activity change existing features of any of the city's stream, lagoons, bays, tidelands or beaches? x EXPLANATION: WILL NOT BE AFFECTED 13) Could the activity result in the erosion or elimin- ation of agricultural lands? x_ EXPLANATION: NOT APPLICABLE 14) Could the activity serve to encourage development of presently undeveloped areas or intensify develop- ment of already developed areas? £ EXPLANATION: THE PROPOSED USE IS AN AMENDITY TO EXISTING CUSTOMERS ON SITE. YES NO 15) Will the activity require a variance from estab- lished environmental standards (air, water, noise, etc.)? X EXPLANATION: NOT APPLICABLE 16) Is the activity carried out as part of a larger project or series of projects? £ EXPLANATION: 17) Will the activity require certification, authoriza- tion or issuance of a permit by any local, state or federal environmental control agency? EXPLANATION: MAY REQUIRE CALIFORNIA COASTAL AGENCY REVIEW 18) Will the activity require issuance of a variance or conditional use permit by the City? £ EXPLANATION: DUE TO THE PROPOSED USE BEING A CAR WASH, CITY MAY REQUIRE ADDITIONAL REVIEW 19) Will the activity involve the application, use, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials? £ EXPLANATION: NOT APPLICABLE YES NO 20) Will the activity involve construction of facilities in a flood plain? EXPLANATION: NOT APPLICABLE 21) Will the activity involve construction of facilities in the area of an active fault? 5_ EXPLANATION: NO ACTIVE FAULT KNOWN AT THIS TIME. 22) Could the activity result in the generation of significant amounts of dust? L EXPLANATION: THE SITE WILL BE FULLY LANDSCAPED AND PAVED. 23) Will the activity involve the burning of brush, trees, or other materials? £ EXPLANATION: SAME AS ABOVE 24) Could the activity result in a significant change in the quality of any portion of the region's air or water resources? (Should note surface, ground water, off-shore.) L EXPLANATION: NOT APPLICABLE 8 YES NO 25) Will the project substantially increase fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.)? x_ EXPLANATION: NO DRAMATIC INCREASE IN USAGE DUE TO THE RECYCLING ENERGY SAVING DESIGN OF PRQJECT. 26) Will the activity involve construction of facilities on a slope of 25 percent or greater? x_ EXPLANATION: FLAT SITE 27) Will there be a significant change to existing land form? x_ (a) Indicate estimated grading to be done in cubic yards: . (b) Percentage of alteration to the present land form: . (c) Maximum height of cut or fill slopes: EXPLANATION: EXISTING FLAT SITE 28) Will the activity result in substantial Increases in. the use of utilities, sewers, drains or streets? EXPLANATION: NOT APPLICABLE x YES NO 29) Will the project significantly increase wind or water erosion of soils? EXPLANATION: NOT APPLICABLE 30) Could the project significantly affect existing fish or wildlife habitat? EXPLANATION: NOT APPLICABLE 31) Will the project significantly produce new light or glare? EXPLANATION: NOT APPLICABLE 10 )fllGNIFICANT ENVIRQNMENTAL EFFE^ II. STATEMENT QF NQlff>IGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFE If you have answered yes to any of the questions in Section I but think the activity will have no significant environmental effects, indicate your reasons below: III. COMMENTS QR ELABORATIONS TQ ANY OF THE QUESTIONS IN SECTION I (If additional space is needed for answering any questions, attach additional sheets as needed.) Signature ( ^^y^^i^ A? Date Signed (PeiSon Completing Report) 11 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: RP 86-07(AVCDP 95-05 DATE: June 6. 1996 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: UNOCAL GAS STATION AND CAR WASH 2. APPLICANT: John Murphv - Proiect Manager/UNOCAL 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPICANT: 555 Anton Blvd. Costa Mesa CA 92626 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Mav 17. 1996 PROJECT DESCRIPTON: The proiect site located at 880 Carlsbad Village Drive is an existing gas station location for Unocal 76. The site is the northwest comer of Harding and Carlsbad Village Drive which is at the entrance to the Citv's downtown and central business district. This proiect involves the demolition of existing gas station improvements including north/south oriented gas pump bavs, a mini-mart/restrooms and full service automotive repair work bays and reconstruction/redevelopment of thc site consisting of a 1.000 square foot enclosed drive-thm car wash, east/west oriented gas pump bavs. and approximatelv 400 square feet of storage, restroom and cashier's area. A mini-mart is not proposed with this proiect. The proposed proiect is reflected in detail on exhibits on file in the Planning Department at 2075 Las Palmas Drive and the Housing and Redevelopment office at 2965 B Roosevelt Street. The proiect has been designed to not create any significant environmental impacts with respect to noise, drainage/pollutant mn-off or traffic circulation. The proiect is consistent with Redevelopment's Village Design Manual. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. I I Land Use and Planning ^ Transportation/Circulation Public Services I I Population and Housing Q Biological Resources Q Utilities & Service Systems I I Geological Problems Q Energy & Mineral Resources Q Aesthetics I I Water Hazards Cultural Resources ^Air Quality Q Noise Q Recreation Rev. 03/28/96 I I Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03/28/96 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) ^ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I I I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I I I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I I I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An NEGATIVE DECLARATION is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I I I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECALATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECALATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. Planner Signature Date Plarming Director's Sign£mire Date Rev. 03/28/96 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. • "Less Than Significant Impacf applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. • "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect fi'om "Potentially Significant Impacf to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. • "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. • Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. • A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. Rev. 03/28/96 • , If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. • An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Source #1: General Plan Final Master EIR 93-01 as approved and certified by City Council Resolution No. 94-246. Source #2: Noise Report Dated June 32, 1996 I LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): 0 b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? 0 c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? 0 d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? () e) Dismpt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? () II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? () b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? () c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? 0 III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? () b) Seismic ground shaking? () c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? () d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? () e) Landslides or mudflows? () f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? () g) Subsidence of the land? () h) Expansive soils? () I) Unique geologic or physical features? () IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems, or the rate and amount of surface mnoff? () b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? () c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? () d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? 0 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significan t Impact No Impact • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • • • • X • • • X Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Source #1: General Plan Final Master EIR 93-01 as approved and certified by City Council Resolution No. 94-246. Source #2: Noise Report Dated June 32, 1996 e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? () f) Changes in the quantity of groimd waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? () g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? () h) Impacts to groundwater quality? () I) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? () V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source #1) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? () c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? () d) Create objectionable odors? () VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Source #1) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? () Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? Potentially Significant Impact c) d) e) f) g) 0 Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? () Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? () Conflicts with adopted policies supporting altemative transportation (e.g. bus tumouts, bicycle racks)? () Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts? () VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? () b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? () c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? () d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vemal pool)? 0 e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? () Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significan t Impact No Impact • • • X • • • X • • • • • • X • • • • • • a • • • • • X • • • • • • • • • • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • • • • • VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Source #1: General Plan Final Master EIR 93-01 as approved and certified by City Council Resolution No. 94-246. Source #2: Noise Report Dated June 32, 1996 a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? () b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? () c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? () IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? () b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? () c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? () d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? () e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? () X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Source #2) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Source #2) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemment services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? () b) Police protection? () c) Schools? 0 d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? () e) Other govemmental services? () XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? () b) Communications systems? () c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? () d) Sewer or septic tanks? () e) Storm water drainage? () f) Solid waste disposal? () g) Local or regional water supplies? () • Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significan Impact Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated • • • X • • • M • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • • • • X • • • X • • X • • • X • • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • ^ • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • M • • • X • • • X • • • X Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Source #1: General Plan Final Master EIR 93-01 as approved and certified by City Council Resolution No. 94-246. Source #2: Noise Report Dated June 32, 1996 XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? () b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? () c) Create light or glare? () XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paieontological resources? () b) Disturb archaeological resources? () c) Affect historical resources? () d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? () e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? () XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? () b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? () XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Califomia history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significan t Impact No Impact • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • tx • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declarafion. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: Rev. 03/28/96 a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. N/A b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. N/A c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined fi-om the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions for the project. N/A 10 Rev. 03/28/96 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. Land Use Planning: The project site currently accommodates the gas station use and related repair work bays. The proposal to replace repair bays with a drive-thm car wash will not create conflicts with existing land use designations, the provision of the Village Design Manual, or the City's General Plan. II. Population and Housing: This commercial site and redevelopment project proposing a car wash and re-oriented gas pump bays will not create any potential impacts to population or housing issues in the City or the region. III. Geologic Problems: No geologic, seismic or topographic features or hazards are associated with this topographically flat, developed urban project site. IV. Water: No impacts to water supplies, ground water resources, or surface run-off characteristics will result from the proposed car wash/redevelopment project. Engineering Department conditions on the project will ensure compliance with all applicable drainage and urban pollutant run-off controls and regulations. V. Air Quality The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin, Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage altemative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked 11 Rev. 03/28/96 "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. VI. Circulation The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop altemative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic fi-om a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impacf. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. With regards to on-site parking; three parking spaces are provided although City codes are silent on parking requirements for car washes. Since no mini-mart or work repair bays are involved, those parking requirements do not apply. In addition to the three on-site parking spaces, the applicant will secure (and be conditioned to do so) three additional off-site spaces via a parking agreement to accommodate the parking needs of gas station/car wash attendants and employees (which would be a maximum of three at a given time). No impacts or shortage on-site parking spaces is anticipate given the elimination of the mini-mart and work bays. VII. Biological Resources No biological resources are associated with this developed, urban commercial site. 12 Rev. 03/28/96 VIII. Energy and Mineral Resources No impacts to energy or mineral resources are involved with the proposed redevelopment of this existing commercial site. IX. Hazards The site currently accommodates a gas station and related repair work bays; so inherently the site and corresponding uses carry the standard assumed risk of any gas station location/operation such as is located on-site as well as the comer property directly to the east (AM/PM mini-mart and gas station). X. Noise A noise analysis was conducted by the applicant Mestre Greve Associates Report dated June 3, 1996) and is available for review at the Planning Department. The report concludes that the design of the car wash tunnel/equipment and related six foot high walls along the north of the project will reduce car wash generated noise so that no significant impacts occur off-site given ambient noise levels. In addition, the nearby sensitive receptors (office buildings to the west, will not be subjected to non-conformance with the 55 LEQ(H) noise guideline for interior office use noise levels. The nearest residence is 180 away from the site and is effectively shielded from noise impacts via an existing two story office building. The project's design to contain noise impacts incorporates specialized car washing equipment, the containment of noise within the car wash tunnel and a six high masonry wall along the project's north property line which will be landscaped. Another consideration is the elimination of the work repair bays as a source of noise generation. An additional source of noise is the proposed vacuum cleaner on-site which is designed to not create significant noise impacts, however, will likely be eliminated from the project's final design by the applicant. No significant noise impacts will result from the proposed project. XI. Public Services This project will not create extraordinary demands on public services or facilities. XII. Utilities and Services Systems This project will not create the need for new or modified sewer systems, gas lines, storm water drainage or solid waster disposal systems. The scope of this project is not significant given the change from a mini-mart/repair bay gas station to a car wash/gas station. XIII. Aesthefics The building design and associated landscaping will meet the objectives and provision of the Village Design Manual as implemented by Redevelopment staff XIV. Cultural Resources No cultural resources are associated with this existing commercial, urban site. 13 Rev. 03/28/96 XV. Recreation No recreational resources or opportunities are involved or required with this site or project. 14 Rev. 03/28/96 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (l¥ APPLICABLE) 15 Rev. 03/28/96 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signamre 16 Rev. 03/28/96 CITY OF CARLSBAD ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT LAND USE REVIEW TO: Housing & Redevelopment - Debbie Fountain DATE: JULY 1, 1996 FROM: Associate Engineer - Clyde Wickham PROJECT ID: RP 86-07A VIA: Principal Civil Engineer - Land Use Review VIA: Assistant City Engineer QJl/j^ UNOCAL 76 STATION PROJECT REPORT AND CONDITIONS TRANSMITTAL The Engineering Department has completed its review of the above referenced project and is recommending: _X That the project be approved subject to the conditions as listed on the attached sheet. That the project be denied for the following reasons: X The following is a final Land Use Review project report for inclusion in the staff report for this project. LAND USE REVIEW SECTION PROJECT REPORT PROJECT ID: RP 86-07A PREPARED BY: Clyde Wickham PROJECT NAME: UNOCAL 76 Station APPROVED BY LOCATION: Northwest corner of Carlsbad Village Drive and Harding Street BRIEF DESCRIPTION: Proposed self-service gas station and automated car wash ENGINEERING ISSUES AND DISCUSSION: Traffic and Circulation: Projected Average Daily Traffic: 900(car wash) + 150 / fueling space = 2100 ADT calculations: (900) + (8 x 150) = 2100 Existing Average Daily Traffic: 1 50 / fueling space + 20 / stall = 1 540 ADT calculations: (150 X 10) + (20 X 2) =1540 INCREASE : + 560 ADT Comment: The increase in ADT will not affect circulation issues adjacent to development. No major traffic and circulation issues are associated with this propo project. The applicant has shown that semi-truck access and circulation can accommodated onsite with minor modification to driveway access. Sewer: Sewer District: Carlsbad Sewer EDU's Required: 2 additional EDU's are required. Comment: No major sewer issues are associated with this proposed project. Water: Water District: Carlsbad EDU's Required: 2 additional EDU's are required. Comment: No major water issues are associated with this proposed project. LAND USE REVIEW - PROJECT REPORT PAGE: 2 RP 86-07A ; UNOCAL 76 STATION Debbie Fountain ; JULY 1, 1996 Grading: Comment: No major grading issues are associated with this proposed project. Drainage and Erosion Control: Comment: City Standards require an onsite drainage system to be designed and constructed as an intregal part of this project. NPDES requirements dictate separate oil and grease separators to be constructed and made a part of the onsite drainage system. Land Title: Comment: No land title conflicts are evident from the city review of this application. Site boundary coincides with land title: YES Improvements: Offsite improvements: NONE Standard Variance Required: NO LAND USE REVIEW - CONDITIONS PAGE: 3 RP 86-07A : UNOCAL 76 STATION Debbie Fountain : JULY 1, 1996 Engineering Conditions General Note: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following engineering conditions, upon the approval of this proposed Redevelopment Permit, must be met prior to approval of occupancy. Pretreatment of the sanitary sewer discharge from this project may be required. In addition to the requirements for a sewer connection permit the applicant shall conform to the requirements of Chapter 13.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. \Z. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from the site, the developer shall submit to and receive approval from the City Engineer for the proposed haul route. The developer shall comply with all conditions and requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the hauling operation. Additional drainage easements may be required. Drainage structures shall be provided or installed prior to the issuance of grading or building permit as may be required by the City Engineer. The car wash portion of this site shall comply with NPDES drainage requirements onsite. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The applicant shall provide best management practices to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading or building permit, whichever occurs first. Prior to or concurrent with Building permit issuance a Right of Way Permit must be obtained for removal and reconstruction of Driveway Approaches, Street Light removal and Streetscape reconstruction. All improvements shall conform to Streetscape Phase 5 design plans. Noise Analysis for Unocal Car Wash #7263 (at Carlsbad Village Drive and Harding Street) City of Carlsbad Report #96-80-B June 3,1996 Prepared For: UNOCAL CORPORATION 555 Anton Boulevard Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Prepared By: Fred Greve, P.E. MikeHohitz MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES 280 Newport Center Drive, Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone (714) 760-0891 FAX (714) 760-1928 Mestre Greve Associates Rcport #96-80-B Page 1 of 6 Summary Noise Analysis for Unocal Car #7263 (at Carlsbad Village Drive and Harding Street) City of Carlsbad INTRODUCTION The proposed Unocal Car Wash #7263 is to be located at the site of the existing Unocal gas station on the west comer of the intersection of Carlsbad \^llage Drive and Harding Street, in the City of Carlsbad. This report will address the potential noise impacts due to the proposed Unocal Car Wash on the adjacent land uses. Any significant noise inq)acts on the adjacent land uses due to ^e proposed project will be identified. Design mitigation measures used are presented below. DESIGN MITIGATION MEASURES 1) The Wind Shear Air Dryer (with silencer) by Proto-Vest (or a dryer with equal CM- 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) The height of the door at the exit end of the tunnel shall be reduced to 10 feet 4) A masonry wall 6.0 feet high shall extend 45' beyond the entrance end of the tunnel, as shown in Exhibit Sl. 5) A masonry wall 6.0 feet high shall extend 20* beyond the exit end of the tunnel, as shown in Exhibit Sl. With these planned design mitigations in place, the noise levels at the adjacent land uses will be substantially reduced. The results of the andysis indicate that even using worst case assumptions, the worst case offices adjacent to the proposed car wash will experience an interior noise level of about 54.7 LEQ(H). This is below the 55 LEQ(H) interior noise guideline. Therefore, all adjacent offices will meet the City of Carlsbad 55 LEQ(H) interior noise guideline without additional mitigation. The nearest residence to the project is about 180 feet from the property line of the proposed car wash. A two-story office building between the residence and the car wash will act as a substantial barrier. The shielding provided by the car wash building, thc wing wall, and the two-story office building renders the car wash noise insignificant at this location. The car wash noise at the residence will be well below ambient, and is not expected to be audible. Mestre Greve Associates Report #96-80-B Page 2 of 6 Noise Analysis for Unocal Car Wash #7263 (at Carlsbad Village Drive and Harding Street) City of Carlsbad 1.0 INTRODUCTION The proposed Unocal Car Wash #7263 is to be located at the site of the existing Unocal gas station on the west comer of the intersection of Carlsbad Village Drive and Harding Street, in the City of Carlsbad, as shown in Exhibit 1. The site plan is shown in Exhibit 2. This report will address the potential noise impacts due to the proposed Unocal Car Wash on the adjacent land uses. A bank is located to the southwest of the site, and is separated from the site by an alley. Office buildings are located to the northwest of the site, and are separated from the site by a driveway and parking spaces. The nearest residence is located along Harding Street, just northwest of the project. Any significant noise impacts on the adjacent land uses due to the proposed project will be identified. Design mitigation measures are specified, and additional mitigation will be suggested if necessary. 2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON NOISE Sound is technically described in terms of the loudness (amplitude) of the sound and frequency (pitch) of the sound. The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (dB). Decibels are based on the logarithmic scale. In terms of human response to noise, a sound 10 dB higher than another is judged to be twice as loud; and 20 dB higher four times as loud; and so forth. Everyday sounds normally range from 30 dB (very quiet) to 100 dB (very loud). Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency-dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Community noise levels are measured in terms of the "A-wcighted decibel," abbreviated dBA. A-weighting is a frequency correction that correlates overall sound pressure levels with the frequency response of the human ear. Exhibit 3 provides examples of various noises and their typical A-weighted noise levels. 3.0 NOISE STANDARDS 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 strictiy apply to this type of noise source. However, the City does have indoor noise guidelines for general offices. Therefore, in this report we will demonstrate compliance of the project with the City of Carlsbad indoor noise level guidelines. 3.1 City of Carlsbad Noise Guidelines The City of Carlsbad specifies indoor noise guidelines for office land uses. The guidelines are based upon the LEQ(H) index. LEQ(H) (Equivalent Hourly Noise Level) represents the average noise level based on the A-weighted decibel. The City of Carlsbad has adopted an interior noise guideline of 55 LEQ(H) for office land uses. (The City's mterior noise standard for residential land uses is 45 CNEL.) MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Exhibit 1 - Vicinity Map 133diS ONIQdVH SOUND LEVELS AND LOUDNESS OF ILLUSTRATIVE NOISES IN INDOOR AND OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTS (A-SeaU Wtighttd Sound UvtU) dB(A) OVER-ALL LBVBL S»mmi PrtMirt Level Approx. 0.0002 MIcrobars COMMUNITY (Ovtdeer) HOME OR INDUSTRY LOUDNESS HuoM* Judgtmeal or Oiffirrat Sound Lcvelf 130 UNCOMFORTABLY MiliUiy Jet Aircnft Take-Off With Afier-bunKr From Aircraft Cairier 0 SO Ft (130) Oxygen Torch (121) 120 dB(A) 32 Tmies as Loud 120 110 LOUD Turbo-Fan Aircraft ® Take Off Power 9 200 Ft, (90) Riveting Machine (110) Rodc-N-RoU Band (108-114) 110dB(A) 16 Times u Loud 100 VERY Jet Ryover 9 1000 Ft (103) Boeing707. DC-896080a Before Landiiv (106) Bell J-2A Helicooter 0 100 R. riOO) 100 dB(A) 8 Tmies as Loud 90 LOUD Power MowTCT (96) Boeing 737. DC-9 9 6080 Ft Before Landini (97) Motorcycle ti^R. (90) Newspaper Press (97) 90 dB(A) 4 Hmes u Loud 80 Car Wash 9 20 Ft (89) Prop. Airplane Flyover ® 1000 Ft (88) Dieael Truck. 40 MPH « 50 a (84) Diesel Ttain. 45 MPH 0 100 R. (83) Food Blender (88) Milling Machine (85) Garbage Disposal (80) 80 dB(A) 2 Tmes as Loud 70 MODERAIELY LOUD High Uifaan Ambient Sound (80) Pancnger Car. 65 MPH 9 25 Pt (77) Rreeway 9 50 PL From Pavement EdKe.l0c00AMC76+or. 6) Living Room Music (76) TV.Audio, Vacuum Cleaner 70dB(A) 60 Air Conditioning Unit @ 100 Ft (60) Cadi Register 9 10 Ft (65-70) Electric l^pewritcr 9 10 R. (64) Dishwasher (Rime) 9 10 Ft (60) Conversaiion f60) 60dB(A)l/ZasLoud 50 QUIET Large Transformen @ IOO Ft (50) 50dB(A)l/4asLoud 40 Bird CaUs (44) Lower Limit Urban Ambient Sound (40) 40dB(A) 1/8 as Loud JUST AUDIBLE (dB(A] Scak fatem^ttd) 10 THRESHOLD OFHEARDK} SOURCE: Reproduced from Melville C. Branch and R. Dale Beland. Outdoor Noiae in the Metmpalitan RnvircnmgnL Published by the City of Los Angeles, 1970. p.2. MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Exhibit 3 Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels Mestre Greve Associates Report #96-80-B Page 3 of 6 4.0 AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENT LEVELS Ambient noise levels were measured at three sites. The sites were selected to represent the adjacent bank, the adjacent office buildings, and the nearest residence. The measurements were made on May 2,1996. Noise measurements were conducted during the daytime hours between 10:30 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. The measurements were made with a Bruel & Kjaer Type 2231 Sound Level Meter. The measurement system was calibrated before and after the measurements with a Briiel & Kjaer Type 4230 sound level calibrator, with calibration traceable to the National Bureau of Standards. Noise measurements were made for two 15-minute periods at each site. The noise measurement results are presented in Table 2. Table 2 AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS (DBA) Site Leq Lmax Lmin Bank 61.8 75.6 50.8 Bank 62.9 81.6 51.7 Offices (2nd floOT) 61.6 73.9 54.4 Offices (2nd flocM*) 61.4 77.2 54.0 Nearest Residence 59.4 71.8 51.0 Nearest Residence 61.2 76.7 51.2 The LEQ noise levels in Table 2 were caused by the nearby traffic on Carlsbad Village Drive and Harding Street. This is a very busy intersection, and the noise levels reflect this condition. During the measurments, it was also noted that tire busting, tuneups, and other service operations occur at the existing gas station. Noise levels from these operations are typically much louder than the projected car wash noise levels. 5.0 CAR WASH NOISE 5.1 Car Wash Noise Measurements The main noise sources associated with the proposed car wash will be the air dryer/blower and coin operated vacuum. The proposed car wash will be using the Wind Shear Air Dryer/blower with silencer manufactured by Proto-Vest, Inc. Noise measurements were conducted by Mestre Greve Associates of the same model of dryer/blower as the one planned for the pressed car wash. Based on these measurements, the proposed dryer/blower (including the silencer) will generate a noise level of approximately 75 dBA at a distance of 40 feet from the source. The diyer/blower represents the largest ndse source for the car wash tunnel area. Other associated noises frx>m the car wash tunnel are insignificant conpared to the dryer. _ Mestre Greve Associates Report #96-80-B Page 4 of 6 Noise levels for the dryer/blower are listed below in Table 3. It should be emphasized that the noise levels in Table 3 represent source noise levels. In the following section, these noise levels will be projected to the distances of the adjacent land uses, and will include adjustments for noise barriers. Table 3 TYPICAL CAR WASH EQUIPMENT SOURCE NOISE LEVELS (DBA) Source Distance (feet) Unmitigated Level Dryer/blower 40 75.0 5.2 Projected Car Wash Noise Levels at Adjacent Land Uses All significant noise generating equipment will be within the car wash tunnel. The car wash tunnel is proposed to be located along the northwest property line. The proposed car wash will be partially enclosed by die car wash tunnel which has two sides and a roof The sides will be solid masonry walls. The roof is proposed to consist of concrete tiles, with glass skylights. No openings or holes are proposed on die roof The wing walls are masonry block, 6 feet high, and will extend at least 45 feet beyond the entrance end and at least 20 feet beyond the exit end of the tunnel. The main noise source from the car wash is the dryer/blower, which will be located near the exit end of the car wash. The car wash entrance end is very much quieter than the exit end. Car wash noise levels were projected at three sites (the adjacent bank, the adjacent office buildings, and the nearest residence). These sites represent the closest adjacent land uses around the site. The source noise levels have been adjusted for distance and noise barrier effects. These projected noise levels include several worst case assumptions, listed below: For the purposes of this study, it was assumed that the dryerIblower runs continuously. ActuaUy, even during the busiest times, the dryer Iblower cycles on and off. This cycling results in a lower LEQ(H) than that which is projected. It was assumed that the offices with operable windows need to meet the 55 LEQ(H) standard with windows open, and offices with fixed windows need to meet the 55 LEQ(H) standard with windows closed. At the bank and offices, traffic noise was added to the car wash noise, so that the total indoor noise levels could be determined. Design mitigation measures already planned for the project are shown in Exhibit 4 and are presented below: Mestre Greve Associates Rcport #96-80-B Page 5 of 6 DESIGN MITIGATION MEASURES 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) The height of the door at die exit end of the tunnel shall be reduced to 10 feet 4) A masonry wall 6.0 feet high shall extend 45* beyond the entrance end of the tunnel, as shown in Exhibit 4. 5) A masonry wall 6.0 feet high shall extend 20' beyond the exit end of the tunnel, as shown in Exhibit 4. The projected worst case noise levels at the adjacent land uses (with the planned design mitigation) are listed in Table 4. Table 4 CAR WASH NOISE LEVELS AT ADJACENT LAND USES WITH DESIGN MITIGATION MEASURES Location Source Noise Level (LEQ) Bank Blower/dryer (entrance end) 50.7 Traffic 60.4 Total Exterior 60.8 Building Noise Reduction 25.0 Interior Noise Level 35.8 Office Building with fixed windows Blower/dryer (exit end) 65.2 Traffic 61.5 Total Exterior 66.7 Building Noise Reduction 25.0 Interior Noise Level 41.7 Office Building with operable windows B16wer/dryer (exit end) 65.2 Traffic 61.5 Total Exterior 66.7 Building Noise Reduction 12.0 Interior Noise Level 54.7 Mestre Greve Associates Report #96-80-B Page 6 of 6 The results in Table 4 indicate that with the above mitigation measures in place, noise levels at the adjacent offices will be below 55 LEQ(H). Therefore, all adjacent offices will meet die City of Carlsbad 55 LEQOH) interior noise guideline without additional mitigation. Thc nearest residence to the project is about 180 feet from the property line of the proposed car wash. A two-story office building between the residence and the car wash will act as a substantial barrier. The shielding provided by the car wash building, the wing wall, and the two-story office building rendei-s the car wash noise insignificant at this location. The car wash noise at the residence will be well below ambient, and is not expected to be audible.