HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 96-03; Unocal Gas Station & Car Wash; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (6)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: ( 818 ) 854-7096
Name, addre
Applicant):
Name, address and phone number of person to be contacted (if 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
YES
Local Facilities Management Zone:
Is the site within Carlsbad's Coastal Zone?
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
^t (Please be Speci fic.^Attach Additional Pages or Exhunts, 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 ATTACH A PROJECT SUMMARY SHEET WHICH 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
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? x
EXPLANATION: THIS PROJECT ENHANCES THE APPEARANCE
OF THE SITE.
3) Could the activity affect the functioning of an
established community or neighborhood? X
EXPLANATION: ™is 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 ENVIRONMENT.
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.
X
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? L
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?
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 materiais? ^
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? ?L
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? L
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
YES m
25) Will the project substantially increase fuel
consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.)?
EXPLANATION: NO DRAMATIC INCREASE IN USAGE DUE TO
THE RECYCLING ENERGY SAVING DESIGN OF PROJECT.
26) Will the activity involve construction of facilities
on a slope of 25 percent or greater?
EXPLANATION: FLAT SITE
27) Will there be a significant change to existing
land form? L
(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? L
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
I^GNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT^ II. STATEMENT OF NQN^GNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT
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 OR ELABORATIONS TO ANY OF THE OUESTIONS IN SECTION I
(If additional space is needed for answering any questions, attach
additional sheets as needed.)
Signature
Date Signed
(Per'^on 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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CASE NAME: UNOCAL GAS STATION AND CAR WASH
APPLICANT: John Murphy - Proiect Manager/UNOCAL
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPICANT: 555 Anton Blvd. Costa Mesa CA 92626
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
ViUage 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 bavs and
reconstruction/redevelopment ofthe site consisting of a 1.000 square foot enclosed drive-thru 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 anv significant environmental impacts with respect to noise,
drainage/pollutant run-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.
1 1 Land Use and Planning ^ Transportation/Circulation 1 1 Public Services
1 1 Population and Housing 1 1 Biological Resources 1 1 Utilities & Service Systems
1 1 Geological Problems 1 1 Energy & Mineral Resources 1 1 Aesthetics
• Water 1 1 Hazards 1 1 Cultural Resources
XAir Quality 1 1 Noise 1 1 Recreation
Rev. 03/28/96
Q 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
Planning Director'XSign^re Date
Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRQNMENTAL 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 Enviromnental 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 infonnation 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 Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
• "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a
"Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
• "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 ENVIRQNMENTAL 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): ()
b) Conflict with applicable envu-onmental 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 fi-om incompatible
land uses? ()
e) Disrupt 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 infi-astructure)? ()
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 fi-om excavation, grading, or fill? ()
g) Subsidence of the land? ()
h) Expansive soils? ()
I) Unique geologic or physical feamres? ()
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? ()
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. temperamre, dissolved
oxygen or mrbidity)? ()
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? 0
Potentially Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant Significan
Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
• • • X
• • • X
• • • 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 ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? ()
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ()
Potentially
Significant
Impact
V.
VI.
g)
h)
I)
Impacts to groundwater quality? ()
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? ()
AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (Source #1)
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ()
Alter air movement, moisture, or temperamre, or cause
any change in climate? ()
Create objectionable odors? ()
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Source
#1)
Hazards to safety from design feamres (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? ()
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
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 mmouts, bicycle racks)? ()
Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts? ()
b)
c)
d)
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
Would the proposal result VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES,
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 namral 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
• • •
• • •
• • • N
• • • X
• • • 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 fumre 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 bmsh,
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 namral 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
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
• • • 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) Dismrb paieontological resources? ()
b) Dismrb archaeological resources? ()
c) Affect historical resources? ()
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic culmral 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 oppormnities? ()
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 fumre 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
• • • X
• • • 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
declaration. 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 measm"es 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 from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project. N/A
10 Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION QF 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 nm-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 concunent 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 Qf Oveniding Considerations" for air
quality impacts. This "Statement Qf Oveniding 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, nmnerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measiu*es
to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concunent 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 from a failing Interstate or State Highway
onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been
incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a "Statement Of Oveniding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of
Oveniding 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 cunently accommodates a gas station and related repair work bays; so inherently the site
and conesponding 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 turmel/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. Aesthetics
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 flF 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 Signature
16 Rev. 03/28/96
City of Carlsbad
PlanniriQ Department
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: 880 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, Califomia
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Major Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Development
Permit to allow the demolition of existing gas pump bays, a mini-mart and automobile
service garage and new constmction consisting of a 1,000 square foot drive-thru car
wash, restrooms, a storage and cashier's kiosk, new gas pump bays, provision of adequate
parking and associated landscaping.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described
project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the Califomia Environmental
Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Qrdinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a
result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a
significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project.
Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, Califomia 92009. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Eric Munoz in the Planning Department at
(619) 43 8-1161, extension 4441.
DATED:
CASENQ:
CASENAME:
JUNE 12, 1996
MICHAEL J. HQt2MILtfiR
RP 86-07(A)/CDP 95-05 Planning Director
UNOCAL GAS STATION AND CAR WASH
'CL
PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 12 ,1996
EM:kr
2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-0894 ®