HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-09-17; Housing & Redevelopment Commission; 286; Unocal Gas Station & Car Wash.: L .*I, -’ ” id fl / I
HOUSING fiND REDEVELOPMENT COMn/ilSSlON - AGENDA BILL-$
AB# a36 TITLE- . DEPT. HD. F&
MTG. 9117196 UNOCAL GAS STATION AND CAR WASH CITYATTY. b&L
DEPT. H/RED RP 96-03, CDP 95-05
I RECOMMENDED ACTION:
: That the Housing and Redevelopment Commission ADOPT Resolution No.&@-- co V APPROVING RP 96-03 AND CDP 95-05 for the Unocal Gas Station and Car Wash Project.
a
4
5 ITEM EXPLANATION:
g
U-J On April 17, 1996 and August 7, 1996, the Design Review Board conducted and completed a
public hearing to consider various permits allowing the continuation of an existing gas station with
the demolition of existing work bays and mini-mart and the construction of a new express car
wash at 880 Carlsbad Village Drive on the northwest corner of Carlsbad Village Drive and
Harding Street in the Village Redevelopment Area. The permit for the previously approved gas
station has expired. Therefore, a new Major Redevelopment Permit and Coastal Development
Permit is required to continue the use of the gas station and to allow the construction of the new
car wash facility.
At the April 17, 1996 meeting, the Design Review Board heard concerns from a few surrounding
property owners regarding noise, parking, circulation and drainage as related to the proposed
Unocal Gas Station and Car Wash Project. The Board members also expressed some concerns
regarding the same issues. The Board approved a continuance of the public hearing for the
project to allow staff the opportunity to draft additional conditions to address the concerns
expressed by the public and its members. In response to the concerns raised during the meeting,
the applicant decided to take some additional actions which included the completion of a noise
analysis, preparation of an on-site circulation plan and preparation of a preliminary drainage plan.
The actions taken by the applicant resulted in some changes to their project which were outlined
in the report to the Design Review Board presented on August 7, 1996. During the August 7,
1996 meeting, the Board considered the revised project as presented by staff and the applicant.
They also considered all final comments made by the public. After ensuring that all concerns had
been appropriately addressed, the Board recommended unanimous approval of the project with a
4-O vote with some revisions to the conditions. The condition revisions included 1) establishment
of an acceptable interior noise level for the office building located adjacent to the subject property
as related to operation of the proposed car wash; 2) proper delineation of pass through lane for
the car wash, located within the fueling area; and, 3) consideration of an alternate to
bougainvillea as the plant type for landscaping related to the six foot block wall. a
p ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
2 The Planning Department conducted an environmental review of the above described project
z pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the
s Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a
Negative Declaration was issued for the subject project by the Planning Department on June 12,
1996. One comment was received from the public in response to the notice of a 30 day review
-
AB# &@b
Page 2
and comment period on the environmental review documents. The primary concerns expressed
in the written response were related to parking and circulation on Harding Street.
Adoption of Design Review Board Resolution No. 248 approved the Negative Declaration for the
project, following consideration of the public comments. Adoption of the attached Housing and
Redevelopment Commission Resolution confirms that the Commission agrees with the
determination made by the Design Review Board regarding the environmental review of the
subject project and also approves the Negative Declaration.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Approval of the subject project will result in no expenditure of funds from the City of Carlsbad or
the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency. The City and the Redevelopment Agency will, however,
receive financial benefit from the project in terms of the additional revenue to be generated from
the project. Based on current estimates, the developer intends to expend approximately
$750,000 for the costs of improving the site and constructing the car wash facility. According to
current records, the total assessed value of the property is $476,526.
At this time, staff does not have the information necessary to provide estimates on the amount of
additional revenue which may be generated by the project. However, it is anticipated that there
will be an increase in property tax increment and the sales of gasoline.
EXHIBITS:
1. Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. aa& approving RP 96-03 and CDP
95-05.
2. Design Review Board Resolution Nos. 248, 249 and 250, dated August 7, 1996.
3. Design Review Board Approved Minutes, dated April 17, 1996.
4. Design Review Board Draft Minutes, dated August 7, 1996.
5. Design Review Board Staff Report dated August 7, 1996 , which includes location map and
reduced copies of Exhibits A-G.
. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 282
A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
APPROVING A MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT (RI’ 96-03) AND
A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (CDP 9505) TO ALLOW THE
CONTINUATION OF AN EXISTING GAS STATION WITH THE
DEMOLITION OF EXISTING WORK BAYS AND MINI-MART AND
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW EXPRESS CAR WASH ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 880 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE IN
SUBAREA 1 OF THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA.
CASE NAME: UNOCAL GAS STATION AND CAR WASH
APN: 203-354-16
CASE NO: RP 96-03/CDP 95-05
WHEREAS, on April 17, 1996 and August 7, 1996, the Carlsbad Design
Review Board held a duly noticed public hearing to consider a Major Redevelopment Permit
(RP 96-03) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP 95-05) for a continuation of an existing gas
station use and construction of a new commercial building to permit an Express Car Wash at
880 Carlsbad Village Drive and adopted Design Review Board Resolutions No. 249 and 250
II recommending to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission that Major Redevelopment
Permit (RP 96-03) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP 95-05) be approved; and
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of
Carlsbad, on the date of this resolution held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the
recommendations and heard all persons interested in or opposed to Major Redevelopment
Permit (RP 96-03) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP 95-05); and
WHEREAS, as a result of an environmental review of the subject project
conducted pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad, a Negative
Declaration was issued for the subject project by the Planning Department on June 12, 1996
and approved by Design Review Board Resolution No. 248 on August 7, 1996.
u 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HRC Resolution No.282
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission as follows:
1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
2. The Major Redevelopment (RP 96-03) and Coastal Development (CDP 95-05)
Permits are amroved and that the findings and conditions of the Design Review Board
contained in Resolutions Nos. 248, 249 and 250, on file in the City Clerk’s Office and
incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission, together with the additional conditions of approval as provided
below :
a) A forty-two inch (42”) masonry wall shall be constructed on the west property line
which shall run the complete length of the property line from north to south, with
the exception that the height of the wall shall drop to thirty inches (30”) at least
fifteen feet (15’) from the south property line for site distance compliance.
b) Landscaping shall be installed (within the proposed landscaping area) on the west
side of the property adjacent to the drive way for the car wash facility which is
taller than the 42” wall and consist of shrubs and plant types approved by the
Housing and Redevelopment Director and the City’s Landscape Architect.
cl Landscaping for the site shall include the installation of twenty-four inch (24”) box
trees at all locations identified on the preliminary landscape plan, rather than the
proposed 15gallon trees.
4 The improvements to the driveway and exit area for the car wash facility shall
include stamped colored concrete to be installed for the entire length of the
driveway to the car wash facility and to the exit from the car wash to Harding
Street.
3. The Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad has
reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration (RP96-03), the environmental impacts
therein identified for this project and any comments thereon. The Housing and Redevelopment
Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect
on the environment and thereby approves the Negative Declaration. The Housing and
Redevelopment Commission finds that the Negative Declaration (RP96-03) reflects the
independent judgment of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
. . . .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
_-
HRC Resolution No. 282
Page 3
4. That this action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission. The provision of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code,
“Time Limits for Judicial Review” shall apply:
“NOTICE TO APPLICANT”
“This time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of
Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by
Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review
must be filed in the appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day following the date on
which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final
a request for the record of the proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an amount
sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time within which such
petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on
which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record,
if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be
filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California,
92008. ”
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th
day of September, 1996 by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Nygaard, Kulchin, Finnila
NOES: Lewis
ABSENT: Hall
ABSTAIN: None
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT 2
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 248
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR A MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT
AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW THE
DEMOLITION OF WORK BAYS AT AN EXISTING UNOCAL
GAS STATION, TO CONTINUE THE EXISTING GAS STATION
USE, AND TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
EXPRESS CAR WASH AT 880 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE
ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF CARLSBAD VILLAGE
DRIVE AND HARDING STREET.
APN: 203-354-I 6
CASE NAME: UNOCAL GAS STATION AND CAR WASH
CASE NO: RP 96-03/CDP 95-05
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 7* day of August, 1996 hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request for a Negative
Declaration; and,
WHEREAS, at said public hearing and upon considering all testimony and
arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff and
the applicant, and considering any written comments received, the Design Review
Board considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board
as follows:
A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design
Review Board hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to the
one page notice and the EIA Part II Form attached hereto and made a part
hereof, based on the following findings:
1
6
DRB Reso. No. 248
RP 96-03/CDP 95-05
Findinas:
1. The Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and
considered Negative Declaration (RP 96-03) the environmental impacts therein
identified for this project and any comments thereon, the Design Review Board finds
that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the
environment and thereby approves the Negative Declaration.
2. The Design Review Board finds that the Negative Declaration (RP 96-03) reflects
the independent judgment of the Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design
Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7’h day of August, 1996 by
the following vote to wit:
AYES: Welshons, Compas, Savary, Marquez
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
KIM ~ELSHONS, Chairperson
Design Review Board
EVAN E. BECKER
Housing and Redevelopment Director
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 249
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO
ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF WORK BAYS AT AN EXISTING
UNOCAL GAS STATION, TO CONTINUE THE EXISTING GAS
STATION USE, AND TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
NEW EXPRESS CAR WASH AT 880 CARLSBAD VILLAGE
DRIVE ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF CARLSBAD
VILLAGE DRIVE AND HARDING STREET.
CASE NAME: UNOCAL GAS STATION AND CAR WASH
CASE NO: RP 96-03
WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and
referred to the Design Review Board; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Redevelopment
Permit , as provided by Chapter 21.35 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Design
Review Board did, on the 17th day of April, 1996, hold a duly noticed public hearing to
consider said application on property described as:
Lots 29 through 32, Block 56, Town of Carlsbad, in the County of
San Diego, State of California, according to the map thereof No. 775
filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County
February 15,1895.
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did continue the public hearing on the
subject project from the 17’” day of April,1996 to the p day of August, 1996 in order to
provide the applicant with additional time to address issues and concerns raised during
the public hearing; and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DRB Resolution No. 249
RP 96-03
WHEREAS, at said continued public hearing held on the 7th day of August, 1996,
upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons
desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors relating to RP 96-03.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review Board
of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
b) That based on the evidence at the public hearing, the Design Review Board
recommends APPROVAL of RP 96-03, based on the following findings and
subject to the following conditions:
Findinns:
I. The project is consistent with all City public facility policies and ordinances since:
a. The Design Review Board has, by inclusion of an appropriate condition to
this project, ensured that the project will not be approved unless the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds that sewer service is
available to serve the project. In addition, the Design Review Board has
added a condition that a note shall be placed on the project that building
permits may not be issued for the project unless the District Engineer
determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot occur
within the project unless sewer service remains available, and the Design
Review Board is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities
Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to
sewer service for this project.
b. All necessary public improvements have been provided or will be required
as conditions of approval.
2
.
. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DRB Reso. No. 249
RP 96-03
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
C. The applicant has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an
appropriate condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that
contract and payment of the fee will enable this body to find that public
facilities will be available concurrent with need as required by the General
Plan.
d. Assurances have been given that adequate sewer for the project will be
provided by the City of Carlsbad.
The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding land uses and future
land uses since surrounding properties are designated for freeway serving
commercial uses within the Village Redevelopment Plan and for “village” uses
within the General Plan.
The applicant is by condition, required to pay any increase in public facility fee,
or new construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any
additional requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan
prepared pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will
ensure continued availability of public facilities.
This project will not cause any significant environmental impacts and a Negative
Declaration has been issued by the Planning Director on June 12, 1996 and
approved by the Design Review Board on August 7, 1996.
This project is consistent with the City’s Growth Management Ordinance as it
has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the
Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1.
The proposed project complies with the findings necessary for approval of a car
wash as follows:
A. The site has been designed to reduce the visual impacts of buildings and
waiting cars on surrounding development and from public streets.
The car wash building has been designed to be consistent with the new
guidelines for the Village Redevelopment Area based on function of the
land uses. The queuing area for the car wash has been screened by
landscaping. Also, the landscaping fcr the site includes several trees
which will soften building facades. As such, the building and car wash
queuing areas have been designed to reduce visual impacts.
3
.
. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DRB Reso. No. 249
RP 96-03
B. All structures have been designed to be architecturally compatible with
surrounding development. The area in which the proposed project is
located includes a variety of architectural style. The proposed structures
on the site will have finishes, coloring, and landscaping which is
consistent with the new Village Master Plan and Design Manual and also
compatible with surrounding development.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
Based on the design of the project, the self-service car wash will result
in no increase in noise levels on the site which will have an adverse
impact on surrounding properties.
The street system serving the proposed project is adequate to properly
handle all traffic generated by the proposed project.
Adequate parking and circulation shall be provided onsite to
accommodate the proposed use. Access to the site will be provided from
Carlsbad Village Drive and Harding Street. To improve circulation on the
site, the canopies are being reoriented to run east to west and a pass
through area has been created in the center of the canopy area to allow
customers to easily access the car wash. The car wash can be accessed
from Harding Street or Carlsbad Village Drive. Adequate space has been
provided for queuing.
Waiting areas for cars will be screened by a combination of landscaping
and fencing. Visual impacts from waiting cars at the entrance to the car
wash will be reduced through the use of landscaped planters which
include several trees. The landscaped areas will be on both sides of the
driveway, or vehicle waiting areas, into the proposed car wash. These
areas will include various types of shrubs and flowering plants which will
be visually appealing as well as provide a screen to the waiting cars. The
project has been conditioned for the owner to maintain all of the
landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition. In addition, the entrance
to the car wash will be oriented to the west which faces an alley and the
side of the adjacent commercial (bank) building.
The signs for the project will be approved under separate permit. The
project has been conditioned to require the sign permit(s) to be consistent
with the Village Design Manual in effect at the time of sign permit
application.
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DRB Reso. No. 249
RP 96-03
H. Adequate means of eliminating grease and oils from drainage systems
shall be provided. The project has been conditioned to comply with the
City’s requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit. This condition will ensure that the best
management practices are used to reduce surface pollutants to an
acceptable level prior to discharge into the storm drain system.
7. That the service station is existing and remains consistent with the goals and
objectives for the Village Redevelopment Area and shall be allowed to continue
its operations subject to the conditions noted herein.
Conditions:
1. The Design Review Board does hereby recommend approval of RP 96-03 for
the Major Redevelopment Permit project entitled “Unocal Gas Station and Car
Wash”. (Exhibits A - G on file in the Housing and Redevelopment Department
and incorporated by this reference, dated August 7, 1996), subject to the
conditions herein set forth. Staff is authorized and directed to make or require
the Developer to make all corrections and modifications to the Redevelopment
Permit Documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and
conform to the final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially
as shown on the approved exhibits. Any proposed development substantially
different from this approval shall require an amendment to this approval.
2. The Developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24” X 36, mylar copy of
the Site Plan as approved by the final decision making body. The Site Plan shall
reflect the conditions of approval by the City. The plan copy shall be submitted to
the Planning Director and approved prior to building, grading, or improvement
plan submittal, whichever occurs first.
3. The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan
check, a reduced, legible version of the approving resolutions on a 24” X 36”
blueline drawing. Said blueline drawings shall also include a copy of any
applicable Coastal Development Permit and signed approved site plan.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
5
. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DRB Reso. No. 249
RP 96-03
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless
the District Engineer determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of
application for such sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of
occupancy.
The Developer shall pay the public facilities fee adopted by the City Council on
July 28, 1987 (amended July 2, 1991) and as amended from time to time, and
any development fees established by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 21.90
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code or other ordinance adopted to implement a
growth management system or Facilities and Improvement Plan and to fulfil1 the
Developers agreement to pay the public facilities fee dated May 13, 1986, a
copy of which is on file with the City Clerk and is incorporated by this reference.
If the fees are not paid, this application will not be consistent with the General
Plan and approval for this project will be void.
This project will comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are
required as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any
amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the
payment of any fees in lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law
on this project are challenged this approval shall be suspended as provided in
Government Code Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be
invalid this approval shall be invalid unless the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission determines that the project without the condition complies with all
requirements of law.
Approval of RP 96-03 is recommended for approval subject to the approval of
CDP 95-05. Approval of these new permits shall supersede all previous
approvals for the gas service station. The conditions set forth herein shall
represent the comprehensive list of conditions for the gas station with express
car wash.
Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a six foot high masonry wall with
gates pursuant to City standards. Location of said receptacles have been
approved as part of this Redevelopment Permit. Enclosure shall be
constrllcted as indicated on the approved Site Plan with colors and/or materials
similar to the project.
6
. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DRB Reso. No. 249
RP 96-03
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, an exterior lighting plan including
parking areas shall be submitted for Planning Director or Housing and
Redevelopment Director approval. All lighting shall be designed to reflect
downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent property.
No outdoor storage of material shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire
Chief. In such instance, a storage plan will be submitted for approval by the Fire
Chief and Housing and Redevelopment Director.
Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing
buildings so as to be plainly visible from the street; color identification and/or
addresses shall contrast to their background color.
The car wash facility is approved with the hours of operation set from
7:OOam to 8:OOpm. The hours of operation of the car wash shall not be
modified without prior written approval from the Housing and
Redevelopment Director.
The car wash facility shall incorporate water recycling equipment into its
design.
The car wash facility is approved with the Wind Shear Air Dryer/Blower
with silencer manufactured by Proto-Vest, Inc. Other models may be used
by the developer, however, such equipment shall be reviewed and
approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Director and shall not
exceed an interior noise level (for adjacent offices) of 55 LEQ(H) or an
exterior noise level of 60 LEQ(H) at 40 feet from the exit or entrance to the
car wash. Documentation that the noise generation potential of alternative
equipment shall be submitted for review and approval by the Housing and
Redevelopment Director.
The car wash facility is approved with the following noise reduction design
features:
a) Skylights in the car wash tunnel will be constructed of one quarter inch
laminated glass; and,
b) The height of the door at the exit end of the tunnel is reduced to ten feet
(IO’}; and,
c) A masonry wall six feet (6’) in height will be constructed to extend
forty-five feet (45’) beyond the entrance end of the tunnel, to the west
along the northern property line; and,
d) A masonry wall six feet (6’) in height will be constructed to extend
twenty feet (20’) beyond the exit end of the tunnel, to the east along the
northern property line;
7
.
. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17.
ia.
19.
20.
21.
. . . .
-
DRB Reso. No. 249
RP 96-03
e) The six foot (6’) masonry walls noted in paragraphs c) and d) above
will be landscaped with a plant type acceptable to the Housing and
Redevelopment Director and the City’s Landscape Consultant on both
the south and north elevations to ensure that these walls are more
visually appealing; and
f) No vacuum unit to be located on the site at any time.
The applicant shall provide a restroom for public use at all times during
regular operating hours of the car wash and gas station.
The project is approved with the installation of telephone(s) for public use
which shall be limited to “call out” only.
The non-handicap parking spaces on the site shall be identified as for use
by “Customers Only”. The applicant shall enter into a parking agreement
with a private property owner within 600 feet of the project site for the
purposes of providing a total of three non-handicap employee parking
spaces for the Unocal Station. This parking agreement shall be approved
by Housing and Redevelopment Director prior to issuance of building
permits for the project.
The project is approved with the on-site circulation plan submitted by the
applicant, dated August 7,1996, which clearly identifies the traffic flow
patterns for the site. Appropriate directional signage and pavement
markings shall be installed on the site to direct the traffic flow patterns and
to delineate the pass-through lane to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
and Housing and Redevelopment Director. Traffic flow within the property
must be managed by the applicant in such a manner to minimize the
impact on Harding Street and Carlsbad Village Drive, as well as
neighboring properties. In managing the traffic flow on the property,
alternate on-site circulation plans may be developed and implemented by
the applicant with prior written approval from the Housing and
Redevelopment Director.
Fuel deliveries to the gas station shall not be permitted during hours in
which the car wash facility is in operation. The project is approved with the
fuel delivery hours set from 9:OOpm to 6:OOam. If the hours of the car wash
are extended for any reason and prior written approval is granted by the
Housing and Redevelopment Director, the hours for the fuel deliveries
shall be reduced to appropriately reflect the hours in which the car wash is
not in operation.
8
,
. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DRB Reso. No. 249
RP 96-03
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
The applicant is aware that the City is preparing a non-residential housing impact
fee (linkage fee) consistent with Program 4.1 of the Housing Element. The
applicant is further aware that the City may determine that certain non-residential
projects may be required to pay a linkage fee, in order to be found consistent
with the Housing Element of the General Plan, If a linkage fee is established by
City Council ordinance and/or resolution and this project becomes subject to a
linkage fee pursuant to said ordinance and/or resolution, then the applicant for
this project, or his/her/their successor(s) in interest shall pay the linkage fee. The
linkage fee shall be paid at the time of issuance of building permits. If linkage
fees are required for this project, and they are not paid, this project will not be
consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project will become null
and void.
Unless a standards variance has been issued, no variance from City Standards
is authorized by virtue of approval of this site plan.
The applicant shall comply with all the rules, regulations and design
requirements of the respective sewer and water agencies regarding services to
the project.
The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan in
conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City’s
Landscape Manual. The plans shall be submitted to and approval obtained from
the Planning Director or Housing and Redevelopment Director prior to the
approval of the grading or building permit, whichever occurs first. The applicant
shall construct and install all landscaping as shown on the approved plans, and
maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds,
trash and debris. All trees planted on the site shall be a minimum of fifteen
(15) gallons in size. Also, the Landscape Plan shall adequately screen the
north side wall and car wash drive through entrance from Carlsbad Village
Drive. The landscaping shall be monitored by the Housing and
Redevelopment Director and may require modification to the satisfaction
of the Housing and Redevelopment Director, if it is determined that the
landscaping is not providing appropriate screening of the car wash facility.
The applicant shall be responsible for coordination of S.D.G&E, Pacific Bell,
Telephone, and Cable TV authorities.
Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall pay all current fees and
deposits required.
Prior to approval of the building permit, the owner of the subject property shall
execute an agreement holding the City harmless regarding drainage across the
adjacent property.
9
. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
_-
DRB Reso. No. 249
RP 96-03
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
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.
The applicant shall apply for, obtain and maintain an industrial waste water
discharge permit concurrently with the building permit for this project and such
permit shall be in effect for the life of this amended redevelopment Permit.
Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from the site, the applicant
shall submit to and receive approval from the City Engineer for the proposed
haul route. The applicant shall comply with all conditions and requirements the
City Engineer may impose with regard to the hauling operation.
Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the
applicant shall submit a detailed Grading and Drainage Plan to the City Engineer
for approval which will mitigate potential flooding to adjacent properties.
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 on site.
The applicant shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPEDES) 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
and Streetscape reconstruction. All improvements shall conform to
Streetscape Phase 5 design plans. As part of the reconstruction of the
driveway approaches, the applicant shall be responsible for removing a
street light on Carlsbad Village Drive and delivering it to a site to be
designated by the City Engineer.
The area under the fuel canopy shall be constructed of concrete and shall
be designed to drain to a sump drain located under the canopy. A sump
pump shall be installed to pump the effluent from the canopy area up into a
holding tank. The holding tank shall be located within a self-contained
area. The effluent from the holding tank may be considered “Hazardous
Waste” and shall be disposed of the legal disposal of the “Hazardous
Waster” and shall produce them upon demand. The final design of this
collection facility shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The
design of any alternate facility that is intended to meet this condition shall
be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
10
. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DRB Reso. No. 249
RP 96-03
35. Prior to the issuance of building permits, complete building plans shall be
submitted to and approved by the Fire Department.
36. Applicant shall submit a copy of the approved site plan to the Fire Department
showing access routes, driveways and general traffic circulation.
37. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to
any changes being made to gasoline storage and dispensing facilities or
equipment.
38. The entire potable and non-potable water system/systems for subject property
shall be evaluated in detail to ensure that adequate capacity, pressure and flow
demands can be met.
39. Sequentially, the Developer’s Engineer shall do the following:
a) Meet with the City Fire Marshal and establish the fire protection
requirements. Also obtain G.P.M demand for domestic and irrigational
needs from appropriate parties.
W Prepare a colored reclaimed water use area map and submit to the
Planning Department for processing and approval.
cl Prior to the preparation of sewer, water and reclaimed water
improvement plans, a meeting must be scheduled with the District
Engineer for review, comment and approval of the preliminary system
layouts and usages (i.e., GPM - EDU).
40.
41.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
The developer will be responsible for all water related fees and deposits plus the
major facility charge which will be collected at time of issuance of building permit.
The Developer shall pay a San Diego County Water Authority capacity charge
which will be collected at issuance of application for meter installations.
This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not
be issued for development of the subject property unless the water district
serving the development determines that adequate water and sewer is available
at the time of application for such water service and sewer permits will continue
to be available until time of occupancy.
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
DRB Reso. No. 249
RP 96-03
42. Any signs proposed for this development shall be designed in
conformance with the Carlsbad Redevelopment Village Design Manual
and/or City Sign Ordinance in effect at the time the sign permit application
is submitted by the applicant to the City of Carlsbad. No pole signs shall
be permitted at any time for this development. The sign permit application
shall require review and approval of the Housing and Redevelopment
Director prior to installation of any signs for this development.
43. If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time; if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the
right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition
issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all
certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted;
institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions
or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or
a successor in interest by the City’s approval of this Resolution.
44. This redevelopment permit is granted for a period of ten (10) years. This
redevelopment permit shall be reviewed by the Housing and Redevelopment
Director on a yearly basis to determine if all conditions of this permit have been
met and that the use does not have a significant detrimental impact on
surrounding properties or the public health and welfare. If the Housing and
Redevelopment Director determines that the use has such significant adverse
impacts, the Housing and Redevelopment Director shall recommend that the
Design Review Board, after providing the permittee the opportunity to be heard,
add additional conditions to mitigate the significant adverse impacts. This permit
may be revoked at any time after a public hearing, if it is found that the use has a
significant detrimental affect on surrounding land uses and the public’s health
and welfare, or the conditions imposed herein have not been met. This permit
may be extended for a reasonable period of time not to exceed ten (10) years
upon written application of the permittee made no less than 90 days prior to the
expiration date of the permit. In granting such extension, the Design Review
Board shall find that no substantial adverse affect on surrounding land uses or
the public’s health and welfare will result because of the continuation of the
permitted use. If a substantial adverse affect on surrounding land uses or the
public’s health and welfare is found, the extension shall be considered as an
original application for a redevelopment permit. There is no limit to the number of
extensions the Design Review Board may grant.
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DRB Reso. No. 249
RP 96-03
45. Prior to the issuance of the building permits, there shall be a deed restriction
placed on the deed to this property, subject to the satisfaction of the Housing
and Redevelopment Director, notifying all interested parties and successors in
interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Negative Declaration and
Redevelopment Permit by Resolution Nos. 248 and 249 on the real property
owned by the declarant. Said deed restriction shall note the property description,
location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of
approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the
deed restriction. Said deed restriction(s) may be modified or terminated only with
the approval of the Housing and Redevelopment Director, Design Review Board
or Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad whichever
as final decision authority for this project.
Standard Code Reminders:
~ The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance, including but not limited to
the following code requirements:
1. The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required
by Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
2. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for
this project within 18 months from the date of project approval.
3. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections
of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time
of building permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
4. This project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access
requirements pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code.
5. All roof appurtenances shall be architecturally integrated and concealed from
vie& and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in substance
as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the
Directors of Housing and Redevelopment and Building.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DRB Reso. No. 249
RP 96-03
6. All landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared to conform with the
Landscape Manual and submitted per the landscape plan check procedures on
file in the Planning Department.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design
Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of August, 1996,
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Welshons, Compas, Savary, Marquez
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
\
g& gdc/y.’ Desievf!ffb
KIM NELSHONS, Chairperson
EVAN E. BECKER
Housing and Redevelopment Director
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 250
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO
ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF WORK BAYS AT AN EXISTING
UNOCAL GAS STATION, TO CONTINUE THE EXISTING GAS
STATION USE, AND TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
NEW EXPRESS CAR WASH AT 880 CARLSBAD VILLAGE
DRIVE ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF CARLSBAD
VILLAGE DRIVE AND HARDING STREET.
CASE NAME: UNOCAL GAS STATION AND CAR WASH
CASE NO: CDP 95-05
WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and
referred to the Design Review Board; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal
Development Permit as provided by Chapter 21.81 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Design
Review Board did, on the 7th day of August, 1996, hold a duly noticed public hearing to
consider said application on property described as:
Lots 29 through 32, Block 56, Town of Carlsbad, in the County of
San Diego, State of California, according to the map thereof No. 775
filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County
February 15,1895.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all
factors relating to CDP 95-05.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review Board
of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
. . . .
. . . .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DRB Reso. No. 250
CDP 95-05
a)
b)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence at the public hearing, the Design Review Board
recommends APPROVAL of Coastal Development Permit 95-05, based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findinas:
I. The project is consistent with all City public facility policies and ordinances since:
a. The Design Review Board has, by inclusion of an appropriate condition to
this project, ensured that the project will not be approved unless the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds that sewer service is
available to serve the project. In addition, the Design Review Board has
added a condition that a note shall be placed on the project that building
permits may not be issued for the project unless the District Engineer
determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot occur
within the project unless sewer service remains available, and the Design
Review Board is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities
Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to
sewer service for this project.
b. All necessary public improvements have been provided or will be required
as conditions of approval.
C. The applicant has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an
appropriate condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that
contract and payment of the fee will enable this body to find that public
facilities will be available concurrent with need as required by the General
Plan.
d. Assurances have been given that adequate sewer for the project will be
provided by the City of Carlsbad.
2. The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding land uses and future land
uses since surrounding properties are designated for freeway serving commercial
uses within the Village Redevelopment Plan and for “village” uses within the General
Plan.
3. The proposed project is located within the City of Carlsbad’s Village Segment of the
California Coastal Zone and it has been determined by the City of Carlsbad that no
coastal resources or implementing policies will be adversely impacted by approval of
the subject project.
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DRB Reso. No. 250
CDP 95-05
4. The applicant is by condition, required to pay any increase in public facility fee,
or new construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any
additional requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan
prepared pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will
ensure continued availability of public facilities.
5. This project will not cause any significant environmental impacts and a Negative
Declaration has been issued by the Planning Director on June 12, 1996 and
approved by the Design Review Board on August 7, 1996.
6. This project is consistent with the City’s Growth Management Ordinance as it
has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the
Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1.
7. The proposed project complies with the findings necessary for approval of a car
wash as follows:
A.
B.
C.
D.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
The site has been designed to reduce the visual impacts of buildings and
waiting cars on surrounding development and from public streets.
The car wash building has been designed to be consistent with the new
guidelines for the Village Redevelopment Area based on function of the
land uses. The queuing area for the car wash has been screened by
landscaping. Also, the landscaping for the site includes several trees
which will soften building facades. As such, the building and car wash
queuing areas have been designed to reduce visual impacts.
All structures have been designed to be architecturally compatible with
surrounding development. The area in which the proposed project is
located includes a variety of architectural styles. The proposed structures
on the site will have finishes, coloring, and landscaping which is
consistent with the new Village Master Plan and Design Manual and also
compatible with surrounding development.
Based on the design of the project, the self-service car wash will result in
no increase in noise levels on the site which will have an adverse impact
on surrounding properties.
The street system serving the proposed project is adequate to properly
handle all traffic generated by the proposed project.
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DRB Reso. No. 250
CDP 95-05
E. Adequate parking and circulation shall be provided onsite to
accommodate the proposed use. Access to the site will be provided from
Carlsbad Village Drive and Harding Street. To improve circulation on the
site, the canopies are being reoriented to run east to west and a pass
through area has been created in the center of the canopy area to allow
customers to easily access the car wash. The car wash can be accessed
from Harding Street or Carlsbad Village Drive. Adequate space has been
provided for queuing.
F. Waiting areas for cars will be screened by a combination of landscaping
and fencing. Visual impacts from waiting cars at the entrance to the car
wash will be reduced through the use of landscaped planters which
include several trees. The landscaped areas will be on both sides of the
driveway, or vehicle waiting areas, into the proposed car wash. These
areas will include various types of shrubs and flowering plants which will
be visually appealing as well as provide a screen to the waiting cars. The
project has been conditioned for the owner to maintain all of the
landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition. In addition, the entrance
to the car wash will be oriented to the west which faces an alley and the
side of the adjacent bank building.
G. The signs for the project will be approved under separate permit. The
project has been conditioned to require the approved sign permit to be
consistent with the Village Design Manual in effect at the time of sign
permit application.
H. Adequate means of eliminating grease and oils from drainage systems
shall be provided. The project has been conditioned to comply with the
City’s requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit. This condition will ensure that the best
management practices are used to reduce surface pollutants to an
acceptable level prior to discharge into the storm drain system.
8. That the service station is existing and remains consistent with the goals and
objectives for the Village Redevelopment Area and shall be allowed to remain
subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Design Review Board Resolution
No. 249, dated August 7, 1996.
. . . .
. ..a
. . . .
4
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DRB Reso. No. 250
CDP 95-05
CONDITIONS:
1. The Design Review Board does hereby recommend approval of CDP 95-05,
for the project entitled “Unocal Gas Station and Car Wash” as shown on Exhibits
“A” - “G”, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment Department, dated August
7, 1996, incorporated herein by reference and subject to the conditions herein
set forth. Staff is authorized and directed to make or require the Developer to
make all corrections and modifications to the Coastal Development Permit
documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and conform to the
final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on
the approved exhibits. Any proposed development substantially different from
this approval shall require an amendment to this approval.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DRB Reso. No. 250
CDP 95-05
2. Approval of CDP 95-05 is subject to approval of RP 96-03. CDP 95-05 is subject
to all conditions contained in Design Review Board Resolution No. 249 dated
August 7, 1996 for RP 96-03, the Unocal Gas Station and Car Wash project.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design
Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of August, 1996,
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Welshons, Compaq Savary, Marquez
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
EVAN E. BECKER
Housing and Redevelopment Director
27
_--
Minutes of: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Time of Meeting: 5:oo P.M.
Date of Meeting: April 17,1998
Place of Meeting: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Welshons called the Regular Meeting to order at 300 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The pledge of allegiance was led by Member Compas.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairperson Welshons, Members Compas, Maquez, and Savary
Absent: Member Vessey
Staff Present: Evan Becker, Housing and Redevelopment Director
Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney
Debbie Fountain, Senior Management Analyst
Eric Munoz, Associate Planner
Bob Wojcik, Principal Engineer
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA:
There were no comments from the audience.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
EXHIBIT 3 :
ACTION: Motion by Member Compas, and duly seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Joint
Meeting of November 1,1995, as submitted.
VOTE: 8-g-l
AYES: Compas, Savary, Welshons
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Maquez
ACTION: Motion by Member Compas, and duly seconded, to approve the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of February 7,1996, as submitted.
VOTE: 4-o
AYES: Compas, Maquez, Savary, Welshons
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARING / DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS:
I. RP 86-7(A)/CDP 95-05 - UNOCAL GAS STATION AND CAR WASH - Request for an amendment
to a Major Redevelopment Permit and issuance of a Coastal Development Permit to allow the
demolition of work bays and mini-mart at the existing Unocal Station and the construction of a new
express car wash at 880 Catlsbad Village Drive on the northwest comer of Cartsbad Village Drive
and Harding Street, in the Village Redevelopment Zone/Sub area 1.
DESIGN REVIEW BOA9r? April 17, 1996 -- Page 2
Debbie Fountain, Senior Management Analyst, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the
applicant is requesting approval to replace the existing work bays and mini-mart at the existing Unocal Gas
Station at 880 Carlsbad Village Drive with a new express car wash which will operate from 6:00 a.m. to
8:00 p.m. Adjacent land uses include an office behind the station on Harding Street, a bank located next
door, an ARC0 gas station located across the street on Harding, and a church located across the street on
Carisbad Village Drive.
Ms. Fountain stated that applicant is proposing to demolish the existing work bays and mini-mart, reorient
the canopies to run east to west, modemize the fuel pumps with credit card readers, construct a new
1,004 s.f. express car wash facility at the rear of the site, construct a new 208 s.f. car wash kiosk, construct
1,746 s.f. of new landscaped areas, provide a public restroom, and provide three parking spaces on site for
those using the vacuum and air/water unit or the restroom. She described the architectural features and
directed attention to the architect’s rendering provided on the west wall.
Ms. Fountain stated that the proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Village
Redevelopment Area and the Local Facilities Management Plan. The project will improve circulation
through reorientation of the canopies and fuel pumps, and the 13% landscaping will visually improve the
site. The proposed building, kiosk, and canopy design are consistent with the Village Design guidelines.
Ms. Fountain discussed the queuing and water usage. She stated that this car wash has a reclaimed water
feature and will only use 13 gallons of fresh water per wash, whereas washing a car at home normally uses
75 gallons of fresh water.
Ms. Fountain stated that staff had received a letter of concern from Olga May, the owner of the office
building directly behind the project. Ms. May expressed concern about the noise of the car wash and traffic
along Harding Street. To reduce noise, the applicant has placed the blow dryer as far back as possible from
the exit point. In addition, the air intake point has been oriented toward the interior back wall, which will be
constructed with 8 inch masonry blocks. Staff feels that these building construction and general site
improvements should alleviate neighboring properties from experiencing noise and traffic impacts above
current levels. Staff recommends approval of the project.
Chairperson Welshons reviewed each of the items being amended and staff provided clarifications as
needed.
Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney, explained the due process procedure of a redevelopment permit,
which is similar to a conditional use permit.
Members Savary and Compas are concerned about the internal circulation on the site and cars going in
different directions. Bob Wojcik, Principal Engineer, explained that directional signs will be placed on the
site. Cars will be directed to enter the site from east to west. He showed on the diagram how cars would
circulate the site.
Chairperson Welshons invited the applicant to speak.
John Murphy, 7 Capobella, Irvine, representing Unocal, addressed the Board and stated that the staff report
and discussion has been very comprehensive. He feels that this project meets the intent and goals of the
General Plan, Local Facilities Management Plan, Growth Management Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Design
Manual, and in many ways have exceeded the City’s development standards. He can accept all of the
conditions which are required. In reference to circulation, Mr. Murphy stated that he would have no
objection to including directional signage for one-way traffic flow through the station. In reference to an
exit-only driveway, he could also accept a condition for that requirement. He noted that there will no longer
be access to the alley behind the station. He feels this will help the traffic circulation. He would also agree
to performing an acoustical study to the satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment Director, prior to
the issuance of building permits, if the Board wishes. He would also be willing to meet with the adjacent
DESIGN REVIEW BOAR- April 17,1998 I- Page 3
property owners and share that study with them. There will be telephones on the site and he could accept a
condition that the telephones be call-out only, with no incoming calls. He feels the site plan is very functional and is an improvement to the existing station layout. He requested the Board’s approval.
Ron Jones, Unocal Corporation, 555 Anton Boulevard, Costa Mesa, addressed the Board and gave a brief
overview of the project to clear up any misunderstandings about the car wash. He stated that the car wash
uses the latest design and the entire operation is computer controlled. There is an attendant in front who
directs cars into the car wash. The processing time in the car wash is one minute per car. There will be
one or two human dryers at the end of the conveyer as the cars wme out. The blowers dry about 90% and
the final towel dry by the attendant gets the rest. The attendant will also direct the cars onto Harding, which
should alleviate some of the traffic problems. Although they have projected 200 cars per day to be
processed, he does not expect to reach that point for quite some time. At peak hours (lunchtime and
between 4-6 p.m.) they expect approximately six cars to be in the queue at any one time. It takes
approximately one minute to complete the final towel dry.
Chairperson Welshons inquired if the applicant would be willing to have a S-10 year time limit placed on the
permit, with annual reviews. Mr. Murphy replied that he would be opposed to a specific time limit since the
permit could be called back for a public hearing at any time, regardless of a time limit. He would not be
opposed to an annual review.
Chairperson Welshons opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak.
John Grant, 7173 Obelisw Circle, Carlsbad, addressed the Board and stated that Olga May is the owner of
the office building behind the gas station. He and his wife are the owners of the ground beneath the office
building. Olga May has pointed out four or five different issues but he feels that only two are germain:
traffic and noise. He was pleased to hear the Unocal representative consent to a noise study as he is very
concerned about noise in the office building. Windows on the first floor of the office building are stationary
but on the second floor the windows open for air circulation. He wants to be sure that the tenants are not
overwhelmed by noise from the car wash operation and 150 vehicles passing through it because sound also
travels upward. He is also concerned about people entering from Carl&ad Village Drive who do not want
gas but only desire to have a car wash. Mr. Grant stated that he is also concerned about water flowing onto
his property from the car wash because it will cause deterioration to the paved parking lot. He is also
concerned about insufficient parking for employees, users of the pay telephone, and users of the vacuum
equipment. He currently has trouble exiting the office building parking lot at 4:30 p.m. and wonders how
much worse it will be when cars are in queue for the car wash.
Jim Scanlon, 7306 Vortand Place, Cartsbad, addressed the Board and stated that he was concerned about
the noise until Mr. Murphy convinced him that he will endeavor to keep noise at an absolute minimum. The
best way to do this is to purchase equipment which operates quietly. However, he would also suggest that
an acoustical engineer be brought in to help improve the acoustics in the new building.
There being no other persons desiring to address the Board on this topic, Chairperson Welshons declared
the public testimony dosed and opened the item for discussion among the Board members.
Chairperson Welshons would like to see the project continued so that the applicant and staff can resolve the
following issues: (1) ingress and egress solutions and a one way traffic flow system; (2) signage for one
way and exit only driveways; (3) solution to control water overflow onto adjoining properties;
(4) confirmation of four off-site parking places for employees; (5) onsite parking marked for customers only;
(6) pay telephones restricted to outgoing calls only; and (7) retention of Condition #13 of DRB Resolution
No. 72, which would retain a five year limit on the redevelopment permit.
Chairperson Welshons requested that staff develop conditions to be added to the resolution approving the
project and return them to the Board for consideration on May 1, 1996. It was further stated by Chairperson
3 0
DESIGN REVIEW BO, > April 17,1996 Page 4
Welshons that an appropriate noise level should be determined in order to set forth an acceptable standard
which must be met by the project and addressed within the proposed noise analysis. Staff should consider
and propose an acceptable standard at the next meeting.
Chairperson Welshons addressed Mr. Murphy and inquired as to whether or not he understood the action
proposed by the Board and that the Board had not yet indicated what their action would be on the project.
Mr. Murphy indicated that he understood and was satisfied with the actions proposed.
ACTION: Motion by Member Compas, and duly seconded, to continue the public hearing to
May 1, 1996 to give staff the opportunity to develop additional conditions for the
project as related to noise, traffic, on-site circulation, drainage, parking for employees
off site, and a time limit for the permit.
VOTE: 4-o
AYES: Compas, Marquez, Savary, Welshons
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
The next scheduled meeting of the Design Review Board will be May 1, 1996.
ADJOURNMENT:
By proper motion, the Regular meeting of April 17, 1996 was adjourned at 6:33 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
EVAN BECKER
Housing and Redevelopment Director
BETTY BUCKNER
Minutes Clerk
31
EXHIBIT 4
Minutes of:
Time of Meeting:
Date of Meeting:
Place of Meeting:
CALL TO ORDER:
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
500 P.M.
August 7, 1996
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Chairperson Welshons called the Regular Meeting to order at 500 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The pledge of allegiance was led by Member Marquez.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairperson Welshons, Members Compas, Marquez and Savaty
Absent: None
Staff Present: Evan Becker, Director of Housing & Redevelopment
Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney
Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer
Debbie Fountain, Senior Management Analyst
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
ACTION: Motion by Member Compas, and duly seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Joint
Meeting of February 21, 1996, as submitted.
VOTE: 3-0-l
AYES: Compas, Savary, Welshons
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Marquez
ACTION: Motion by Member Savary, and duly seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular
Meeting of April 17, 1996, as submitted.
VOTE: 4-o
AYES: Compas, Marquez, Savary, Welshons
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA:
There were no comments from the audience.
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. RP 96-03/CDP 95-05 - UNOCAL GAS STATION AND CAR WASH - Request for a Major
Redevelopment Permit and a Coastal Development Permit to allow the continuation of an existing
gas station with the demotion of existing work bays and mini-mart and the construction of a new
express car wash at 880 Carlsbad Village Drive on the northwest corner of Carlsbad Village Drive
and Harding Street in the Village Redevelopment Zone/Sub-Area 1.
Chairperson Welshons announced to the applicant, Board Members and public that if the Board recommends
approval of this item it will be forwarded to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission for their
consideration.
MINUTES
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD August 7, 1996 Page 2
Debbie Fountain, Senior Management Analyst, discussed some of the issues that were raised at the last
meeting when this item was continued, and how the applicant has addressed them. This item came before
the Board on April 17, 1996, and was continued to give staff the opportunity to work with the applicant to
address some additional conditions related to noise, parking, on-site circulation, and drainage related to the
project. In response to what was heard at the hearing, the applicant took the initiative to go back and do
some additional work such as a noise analysis, prepare a preliminary drainage plan, do some work on the
on-site circulation. Staff feels confident that the issues that were raised at the April 17, 1996 with regard to
this matter have been addressed and resolved.
Ms. Fountain noted changes that had been made from the last report. A new permit will be issued for the gas
station and car wash rather than continuing with the effort to try to make the previous permit number and
approved resolution work for both the gas station and car wash. If the Board recommends this item for
approval, a new permit will be issued and staff will no longer be referring to any past resolutions. All of the
conditions for the project will be included in this new permit for the continuing gas station and the new car
wash. Therefore, these new permits will supersede all previous land use permits for the property. Based on
the noise analysis completed by the applicant, staff was required to complete additional Environmental
Review. The project had originally been exempted based on the noise information submitted by the
applicant. The exempt documentation was rescinded and a new environmental review was completed which
resulted in a Negative Declaration for the project. Resolution No. 248 has been added which will approve the
Negative Declaration for the project.
Under the current Land Use Regulations, gas stations are a permitted use. A CUP is not required but a
Redevelopment Permit is required. Car washes are approved as a conditional use in the Redevelopment
Area; the Redevelopment Permit will serve as the Conditional Use Permit. Typically, five-year time limits are
used on CUPS. However, based on the investment involved, a ten-year time limit can be granted. In this
case, Unocal is asking for a ten-year time limit on the CUP, and staff supports this based on their investment,
which is estimated to total $750,000 to improve the property.
The applicant developed an on-site circulation plan to address.some of the concerns related to management
of the traffic on the property. They have provided for some one-way traffic through the fueling area so
vehicles will enter off of Harding Street or off of the first entrance off of Carlsbad Village Drive and then exit
onto Carlsbad Village Drive. The site would have an “entrance only” and “exit only” on Carlsbad Village Drive.
A new condition that was added to the project after further review was to restrict the fuel deliveries to the
hours between 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. so that fuel deliveries would only be made when the car wash was
not open for business.
The coin-operated vacuum unit that was originally in the project has been removed from the project
completely.
Under the conceptual drainage plan that was prepared and reviewed by staff, staff feels comfortable that the
issues/concerns related to drainage onto the adjacent property to the north have been resolved. Specifically,
full walls will be erected to prevent any water from draining onto the adjacent property to the north. A grading
plan has also been developed to ensure that the water will drain south rather than north.
A noise analysis was conducted and resulted in changes to the project. The height of the door for the car
wash has been reduced to 10’. Additionally, on the entrance and the exit to the car wash there are wing
walls that are 12’ high and 10’ wide to block the sound traveling to the north. There will also be 6’ masonry
walls with landscaping that would run the full length of the property. The landscaping has been proposed for
the walls to discourage graffiti.
MINUTES
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD August 7, 1996 Page 3
The ADT was also revised in the report to 2100, breaking down to 1200 for the gas station and 900 for the
car wash.
Parking on-site was another issue. The applicant has agreed to make this available for customers only,
unless they have a handicapped employee, who would park on-site in the handicapped space. The applicant
will negotiate an agreement with a property owner within 600’ for another three parking spaces where
employees will park. Applicant is aware that they must enter into this agreement before they get their
building permit.
Ms. Fountain asked Board Members if they had any questions on this item.
Member Compas queried about page 3 of the Analysis, line 2 from the top which reads, “...the applicant has
proposed metal window,4ouver frames painted blue and dark gray ceramic tiles...” and whether or not this was
a typo. Ms. Fountain responded that she combined them too quickly and stated that what she was trying to
focus on was the visual interest developed for the project; the items are two separate features.
Chairperson Welshons referred to pages 5 and 9 of the staff report, indicating that the design of the gas
station and car wash complies with the new Master Plan and Design Manual, and asked if Ms. Fountain could
confirm this. Ms. Fountain apologized for not addressing this earlier and stated .that when staff began
working with the applicant on this project the original proposal for the design of the building was a fairly
standard looking car wash building. Staff asked them to take the design guidelines from the new Master Plan
and Design Manual and work with those to come up with something that was more in character with those
design guidelines. The applicant did this, and staff feels comfortable that the applicant has met the intent of
those guidelines and have incorporated features that make this car wash consistent with the Village
character.
Chairperson Welshons asked about No. 4-2 of the Design Guidelines which states, “Avoid drive-thru service
uses. Drive-thru windows for banks, fast-food restaurants, and similar uses take up valuable Village land
area and create potential pedestrian-vehicular conflicts.” Ms. Fountain responded by saying there are
numerous guidelines contained in the Design Guidelines, and that every project will be unable to meet all
guidelines contained therein. What staff asks applicants to do is to meet the intent of the guidelines. Each
project is looked at individually and is evaluated for how close they come to conforming with the guidelines.
Staff also considers the uses planned for the proposed buildings and attempts to be reasonable in the
application of the guidelines.
Chairperson Welshons asked about 4-9 of the Design Guidelines, which refers to roof forms to emphasize the
use of gable roofs with slopes of 7 and 12 or greater and also to encourage the use of dormers and gable
roofs. Ms. Fountain reiterated that these were guidelines, not standards, and that staff is looking to see that
applicants meet the intent of the guidelines. Staff made the decision that dormers and pitched roofs were not
necessary and that the applicant has made a good faith effort to remain in character with the Village with the
proposed design.
Chairperson Welshons queried about 4-10 of the Design Guidelines, which referred to an emphasis on wood
and composition of shingled roofs. Ms. Fountain reiterated that the applicant was asked to come as close as
they could to the guidelines. In this particular case, shingled roofs would not work, and such a roof would
probably create more of a noise nuisance.
Chairperson Welshons queried about the noise issue and referred to page 9 of the staff report, “...offices
adjacent to the proposed car wash will experience an interior noise level of about 52.1 LEQ(H);” “This is
below the City of Cartsbad’s adopted interior noise guidelines of 55 LEQ(H) for offices.” Then on page 7 of
Resolution No. 249, Condition No. 15, it says “...approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Director and
shall not exceed a noise /eve/ of 60 LEQ(H)....” Commissioner Welshons suggested that if 55 LEQ(H) is the
MINUTES
_-
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD August 7, 1996
City’s standard, then the Resolution should reflect it as well. Ms. Fountain said that could be done. Ms.
Fountain further stated that the resolution is specifically referring to the acceptable exterior noise levels and
not the interior noise levels. The exterior noise level is 60, which is deemed acceptable, while the 55 level
refers to the acceptable interior noise level; both noise levels, however can be added to the resolution.
Member Compas referred to page 6 of the Analysis in the second to the last paragraph, it states “The patrons
of the car wash would be directed by an attendant to exist onto Harding Street, unless they are then going to
purchase fuel.” and queried whether or not there would be an attendant on the premises at all times. Ms.
Fountain said yes, there would be based on her understanding of the project.
Member Compas asked if people entering off of Carlsbad Village Drive to purchase fuel could get to the
inside island easily. Ms. Fountain said yes, she believed they could and this was confirmed by Bob Wojcik.
Member Savary expressed concern to Mr. Wojcik regarding the exit from the car wash onto Harding Street.
She stated that the exit is not that far from the light, and wanted to know what happens if you wanted to turn
left. Mr. Wojcik answered that the driver would have to wait for a break in the light. He added that this is an
existing driveway with an existing gas station use so staffs view is that the property owner has a vested right
to continue use of that driveway. Whether they add the car wash or not, there will still be cars entering and
exiting at that driveway. Member Savary asked what if a car came out and wanted to turn left on Harding, not
before the light, but wanted to go north on Harding and wouldn’t they have to cross three traffic lanes. Mr.
Wojcik said that was correct, they would have to cross the traffic lanes as they presently do. Member Savary
asked if this was acceptable. Mr. Wojcik replied that it was acceptable in that its an existing situation with an
existing use and since there is no record of accidents in that location it is not considered a problem. Further,
people tend to drive in a manner in which they are least restricted. Member Savary asked if a “right turn only”
notice would be feasible and improve the safety factor. Mr. Wojcik said yes, it is feasible, but added that he
did not think it was necessary, and it would be unenforceable as well.
Member Marquez queried about what type of pavement delineation was going to be utilized to designate the
pass-through lane. The applicant indicated through Mr. Wojcik that there would be painted lines/arrows.
Member Marquez referred to Item 13 on page 7 of Resolution 249, which talks about the hours for which.the
car wash would be operated, namely 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and noted the discrepancy on Sheet D of the
Plan that says 6::00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Ms. Fountain stated that the plans did not get changed but the noise
analysis resulted in the decision to change the hours of operation. The hours will be 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m as
indicated in the staff report.
Member Marquez referred to Sheets D, E, & G of the Plan it shows the vacuum units still in place. Ms.
Fountain said that when the plans were revised the applicant inadvertently included some of the old features,
and this is why staff added a specific condition about the vacuum unit and its prohibition within the approving
resolution.
Member Marquez asked Ms. Fountain if staff felt comfortable with the cashier’s building having a flat roof on
it, to which Ms. Fountain said yes. Member Savary asked how the cashier’s office is accessed by people
who are passing through the car wash. Ms. Fountain deferred the question to the applicant.
Member Marquez asked the about the pass-through lane, stating that it looked as though there is only 30’
between the bays, and each lane is 10’ wide. Does the applicant feel that this is adequate? Mr. Wojcik said
the dimension between the islands does appear to be 30’. Typically staff looks for a fuel land which is at least
8’ in width, with 2 cars at 16’; this would allow for a 14’ pass-through lane.
MINUTES
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD August 7, 1996 Page 5
Member Welshons asked about the restrooms that are located in the cashier’s office and it was noted on the
plans that it was for employees. Ms. Fountain said a condition was added to the approving resolutions which
require the restrooms to be available for public use at all times.
Member Welshons referred to page 8 of Resolution 249, Conditions 20 and 21, and questioned if the project
could be returned to the Board if the hours of operation or the traffic management plan changes rather than
the Housing and Redevelopment Director being permitted to approve any changes. Member Welshons was
concerned that the Board is recommending approval of the project based on specific conditions of operation
and that the Board should approve any changes rather than the Director. Debbie Fountain stated that the
project could be returned to the Board if so desired.
Chairperson Welshons invited the applicant to speak.
Applicant John Murphy, Unocal, 555 Anton Boulevard, Costa Mesa, CA, replied to some questions that were
raised earlier by Board Members. With regard to the pass-through, yes, there will be arrows painted on the
pavement. With regard to the restroom, there is one restroom and there is a condition that it be available to
the public. The cashier’s booth is where all transactions will take place. There will be no mini mart.
Chairperson Welshons asked if there was someone staffing the kiosk at all times, to which Mr. Murphy
replied, yes. There will be always be three employees during business hours.
Chairperson Welshons opened the matter for public testimony.
Olga May, owner of the adjacent property, which is a two-story office building next to the proposed car wash.
Ms. May thanked the Board and applicant for attempting to address all her concerns. She still had concerns,
however. She was concerned about the 10’ masonry wall and what the noise levels would be to her second
story offices which face the car wash. Ms. May wondered if it would be feasible to trap some of the noises by
placing some type of roof further towards the area where Unocal’s mechanism will be. Other concerns deal
with parking. She is afraid that her parking places will be used by employees and customers, These
concerns stem from the fact that not only is this a car wash, but there is a public phone booth and recycling
bins that will also draw others to come to this site. Another concern had to do with traffic. She anticipates
severe problems with this. Ms. May wondered if the plant that is designated to go along the wall,
bougainvillea, could be changed to an alternate plant. Her concern is due to the fact bougainvillea sheds so
much and could cause her a maintenance problem. In addition, she wanted to know how these plants would
be watered.
Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this item, Chairperson Welshons asked the applicant to return to
answer questions raised by Ms. May.
Mr. Murphy addressed Ms. May’s concerns, beginning with parking. Mr. Murphy explained that he was
required to enter into an shared parking agreement for an additional 3 parking spaces which will be for the
employees only. The agreement is with the church across the street. Therefore, the applicant will actually
have parking which provides for 6 spaces, not 3. With regard to the bougainvillea, Mr. Murphy stated he
would be happy to work together on coming up with an alternative. With regard to the landscaping, Mr.
Murphy stated that he was required by the Code to install sprinklers and water his landscaping. With regard
to the noise issues, Mr. Murphy’s noise consultant, Martin Beale, spoke to the issue. Mr. Beale is with Mestre
Greve Associates, 280 Newport Center Drive, Suite 230, Newport Beach, CA. Mr. Beale stated the noise
report addressed noise levels in the adjacent office building on both the first and second floors and the study
did address noise levels inside the office building with windows open. The findings were that noise levels
inside the office will comply with the City’s noise ordinance of 55 LEQ(H).
MINUTES
- -
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD August 7, 1996 Page 6
Chairperson Welshons asked for clarification on the height of the walls that are extending on either side to the
east and to the west, the walls are 6’ and the overhang was dropped down to 10’. Mr. Beale said that was
correct. Mr. Beale added that the wall at the exit of the car wash has been lowered to 10’. This wall was
lowered because it was ascertained that with a higher wall, the noise levels would be higher at the office
building. Lowering the wall will reduce the noise levels.
Mr. Murphy thanked staff for their cooperation and professionalism. In closing, Mr. Murphy stated that he
believed he addressed all of the issues that were raised last April and has met the guidelines and intent of the
General Plan.
Chairperson Welshons closed the public testimony and opened Board discussion and questions of staff.
Chairperson Welshons said that she took issues with the Conditions 20 and 21 cited on page 8 of Resolution
No. 249, and prefers to have them changed to read that any changes would have to come back through the
Board. Additionally, she would like Condition 15 changed which deals with the noise level. Mr. Rudolf
offered some language which would read, “...exceed the noise /eve/ of (interior) 55 LEQ(H) and (exterior) 60
LEQ(H)...”
Chairperson Welshons also addressed the modification of bougainvillea, and since both parties are in
agreement, she wondered if the specificity of bougainvillea needed to be dropped. Ms. Fountain said it could
say “with bougainvillea or other plant type acceptable to Housing and Redevelopment Director and City’s
Landscape Architect Consultant.” Mr. Rudolf asked Ms. Fountain if she was going to put the language in the
plans or in Condition No. 25 on page 9. Mr. Rudolf added that Condition No. 25 was generic. Ms. Fountain
has it specifically stated on page 8 under 16(e). Mr. Rudolf said to make the change in 16(e).
Member Marquez said she had the concern about the pass-through lane being properly delineated which is
somewhat addressed in Condition 20 in Resolution 249. Mr. Wojcik recommended in line 3 of paragraph 2
after the words “appropriate directional signage” to insert “and pavement markings shall be installed on the
sight to direct the traffic flow patterns to the satisfaction of the Housing and Redevelopment Director and City
Engineer.”
Mr. Rudolf referred Mr. Wojcik to the first sentence in Condition 20 says “The project is approved with the on-
site circulation p/an submitted by the applicant, dated August 7, 1996.” and asked him if the language he just
added was not shown on that on-site circulation plan. Mr. Wojcik replied that the only item not shown on
there is the pass-through lane.
Chairperson Welshons asked Ms. Fountain about a comment made by Member Marquez and that it looked
like some of the plans just carried forward without dropping some of the changes. Are these the corrected
circulation plans, to which Ms. Fountain said yes. The circulation plan is a new plan, since the last report on
the project.
Member Compas expressed his support for the change in No. 15, the landscaping change, and the striping
change. He did not feel it was necessary to change Nos. 20 and 21, however. In addition, Member Compas
was very impressed with the job the applicant has done to try and satisfy the wants of this Board.
ACTION: Motion by Member Compas, and duly seconded, to adopt Design Review Board
Resolution No. 248 approving a Negative Declaration and adopt Design Review Board
Resolution Nos. 249 and 250 recommending approval of RP 96-03 and CDP 95-05 to
the Housing and Redevelopment Commission based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
MINUTES
.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD August 7, 1996 Page 7
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Motion fails
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Motion fails
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ACTION:
Motion by Member Savary, and duly seconded, to add the language in Condition No. 15
of Resolution No. 249 as proposed by Assistant City Attorney Rudolf.
4-o
Compas, Marquez, Savary, Welshons
None
None
Motion by Member Savary, and duly seconded, to add language in Condition 16(e)
regarding landscaping as worded by Senior Management Analyst Fountain.
4-o
Compas, Marquez, Savary, Welshons
None
None
Motion by Member Marquez, and duly seconded, to add pass-through and striping and
patterning language to Condition 20, as worded by City Engineer.
4-o
Compas, Marquez, Savary, Welshons
None
None
Motion by Chairperson Welshons, and duly seconded, that any changes to the
circulation plans would have to come back to the Board versus written approval from the
Housing and Redevelopment Director be added to Condition No. 20.
2-2
Marquez, Welshons
Compas, Savary
None
Motion by Chairperson Welshons, and duly seconded, that if the hours of the car wash
are extended for any reason, it would have to come back before the Board versus
written approval from the Housing and Redevelopment Director be added to Condition
No. 21.
2-2
Marquez, Welshons
Compas, Savary
None
Motion by Member Compas, and duly seconded, amending page 5 of Resolution No.
249, Condition No. 2 to read as Planning Director rather than City Engineer.
4-o
Compas, Marquez, Savary, Welshons
None
None
Motion by Member Compas, and duly seconded, to adopt Design Review Board
Resolution No. 248 approving a Negative Declaration and adopt Design Review Board
Resolution Nos. 249 and 250 recommending approval of RP 96-03 and CDP 95-05 to
MINUTES
tt - lousing and Redevelopment Commission ;ed on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
VOTE: 4-o
AYES: Compas, Marquez, Savary, Welshons
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ADDED ITEMS AND REPORTS:
Correspondence from Michael Murphy regarding Design Review Board Minutes of February 7, 1996.
Ms. Fountain said staff received a letter from Mr. Murphy regarding the Design Review Board Minutes of
February 7, 1996, in which staff was proposing action to revoke the parking agreement between Old World
Center and Roosevelt Center. Mr. Murphy is contesting one statement that was made in those minutes,
stating that he did not make the statement. Staff has indicated to Mr. Murphy that his letter will be made a
part of the record through these Minutes at this meeting, but it would be difficult for the Board to actually go
and revise the Minutes of February 7, 1996 unless someone has a good memory of what was said at that
meeting because the meeting was not recorded. Ms. Fountain said that if the Board wants to bring back the
meeting Minutes for reconsideration they would have to be put them on a future agenda to consider any
changes.
Chairperson Welshons asked Mr. Rudolf for his opinion, and he replied that what Ms. Fountain said were the
options.
Chairperson asked if Mr. Murphy was present this evening, but he was not. No one was interested in
speaking to this item. Public testimony was closed.
ACTION: Motion by Member Savary, and duly seconded, to note and file the letter from Michael
K. Murphy regarding the Design Review Board Minutes of February 7, 1996.
VOTE: 4-o
AYES: Compas, Marquez, Savary, Welshons
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
No announcements from Housing and Redevelopment Director Becker.
No announcements from Assistant City Attorney Rudolf.
No announcements from Senior Management Analyst Fountain.
Chairperson Welshons noted that the next Design and Review Board meeting was scheduled as a joint
meeting with the Planning Commission on August 21, 1996.
ADJOURNMENT:
By proper motion, the Regular meeting of August 7, 1996 was adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
EVAN BECKER
Housing and Redevelopment Director
TERI GERENT
Minutes Clerk
MINUTES
/w @3 _-
EXHIBIT 5
City of Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Department
A REPORT TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Application Complete Date: January lo,1996
Environmental Review:
Neg. Dec. 6/12/96
DATE: August 7,1996
SUBJECT: RP 96-03/CDP 95-05 - UNOCAL GAS STATION AND CAR WASH -
Request for a Major Redevelopment Permit and a Coastal Development
Permit to allow the continuation of an existing gas station with the
demolition of existing work bays and mini-mart and the construction of a
new express car wash at 880 Carlsbad Village Drive on the northwest
corner of Carlsbad Village Drive and Harding Street in the Village
Redevelopment Zone/Sub-Area 1.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Design Review Board ADOPT Design Review Board Resolution No. 248
APPROVING a Negative Declaration and ADOPT Design Review Board Resolution
Nos. 249 and 250 recommending APPROVAL of RP 96-03 and CDP 95-05 to the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission based on the findings and subject to the
conditions contained therein.
II. PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Design Review Board initially was presented the Unocal Car Wash Project on April
17, 1996 during a public hearing. As a result of the public testimony on the project and
the Board’s questions regarding potential noise, parking, on-site circulation and
drainage impacts, the Board discussed additional conditions to be added to the project.
Due to the fact that the length of the meeting exceeded the one hour allocated for it, the
Board decided to continue the public hearing item to May 1, 1996 to allow staff the
opportunity to draft the additional conditions for consideration by the Board. Following
the April 17* Board meeting, the applicant decided that it was in their best interest to
move ahead and complete 1) a noise analysis for the car wash and
1
related facilities; 2) prepare a conceptual drainage/grading plan; 3) research a Shared
Parking Agreement with another property owner in close proximity to the Unocal Station
for employee parking; and, 4) complete an analysis of on-site circulation. Therefore, the
applicant requested a continuance of the hearing to June 5, 1996.
As a result of the findings of the noise analysis (which will be explained in more detail
later in this report), it was determined that the car wash and related facilities, and
specifically the vacuum unit, did create an impact which required some mitigation. The
applicant needed to redesign the project in some areas and environmental review
needed to be performed. Consequently, the project could not be returned to the Design
Review Board on June 5, 1996. The project hearing was continued to the Board
meeting of August 7, 1996.
Since April 17, 1996, staff has been working with the applicant to redesign the project to
address the car wash noise issues and the on-site circulation related to the customer
vehicles and the fuel delivery trucks. The applicant was also able to satisfy staff that the
drainage and parking issues have been appropriately addressed.
The Unocal Project is presented to the Design Review Board at this time for review of
the final (revised) plans and for further consideration of the requested redevelopment
and coastal development permits. The project’s site plan and related exhibits are
shown on Exhibits “A” - “G”, dated August 7, 1996.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting approval of a Major Redevelopment Permit and a Coastal
Development Permit to continue the existing gas station use (Unocal) and to replace
the existing work bays and mini-mart at 880 Carlsbad Village Drive (location map
attached) with a new express car wash which will operate from 7:OOam to 8:OOpm. In
addition, the applicant is proposing to reorient the canopies and modernize the fuel
pumps as related to the existing gas station use. The proposed development consists
of 1) a 1,004 square foot car wash which has a smaller footprint than the existing
workbay/mini-mart building on the site; 2) a 208 square foot car wash kiosk; 3) 1,900
square feet of gas pump island canopy covers; and 4) three parking spaces. The
existing gas pumps for the service station will be replaced with new multiple dispenser
pumps with credit card readers. The canopy covers will be replaced and installed with a
new orientation from east to west on the property rather than north to south as currently
oriented. New landscaping will be added to the site; the landscaped areas will occupy
approximately 13% of the site providing approximately 1746 square feet of landscaping.
The proposed new car wash structure is designed with a concrete flat roof tile in
shake/shingle style and medium gray color with a pitched roofline. The building will
have a gray and white stucco finish with accent colors used to give visual interest. At
the top of the roof, there will be glass skylights (I/4” laminated glass) with metal frames
2
painted in a medium gray to closely match the roof tiles. To add some additional visual
interest to the car wash building, the applicant has proposed metal windowllouver
frames painted blue and dark gray ceramic tiles to accent the lower portion of the
building. All accent trim will be painted medium gray. The fueling area canopies and
kiosk will match the car wash building in basic design, color and materials. A total of
three (3) parking spaces are proposed as shown on the site plan to allow for use of the
restroom, air/water dispensers and the telephone (call out only). Staff has determined
that the project meets existing standards and is consistent with the design guidelines
within the new Village Master Plan and Design Manual.
The site is currently dominated by asphalt coverage and has three driveways with
minimum landscaping. All three driveways shall remain. However, the proposed project
will close off access to the west side Alley directly from the site. The site will be
enhanced with new landscaping.
The reorientation of the canopies and fuel pumps will improve circulation on the site.
Customers for the car wash will enter the car wash building on the west side of the
property and exit to the east. A pass-through area has been provided within the fuel
pump area to allow customers to access the car wash directly from the east.
Ill. ANALYSIS
General P/an/Zoning Consistency: The proposed commercial development is
consistent with the General Plan designation of “Village” and the zoning for the property
which is V-R (Village Redevelopment). The property is located within Subarea 1 of the
existing Village Design Manual which allows for all land uses permitted in C-2, C-l or R-
P zones. The permitted land uses for Subarea 1 include gas/service stations. A car
wash is a conditional land use within Subarea 1. Subarea 1 is proposed as a strong
commercial center along the Carlsbad Village Drive corridor. Also, the property is
located in a Freeway Service Area. The proposed project is consistent with the goals
and objectives for the subject area of the Village Redevelopment Area.
The Village Design Manual is the document which regulates land uses for the Village
Redevelopment Area. Currently, the Village Design Manual dated April 1988 is in effect
for all properties located within the Village Redevelopment Area and also within the
Coastal Zone. A new Village Master Plan and Design Manual was approved and
became effective on January 12, 1996 for all properties in the Village Redevelopment
Area which are outside the Coastal Zone; it is anticipated that this new document will
be effective throughout the Redevelopment Area by September, 1996. Until the new
document becomes effective for properties in the Village which are also located in the
Coastal Zone, the 1988 Village Design Manual is the regulating document.
3
The 1988 Village Design Manual indicates that the subject property for the proposed
express car wash and existing gas station is located in Land Use Subarea 1. As
indicated above, the land uses allowed within this subarea are the same as those
allowed within the C-l, C-2 and R-P zones. Gas Service Stations are permitted uses
within the C-l zone (Chapter 21.26 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code). The Gas Service
Station was previously approved as a permitted use on the site. Although the canopies
and fuel pumps are being reoriented for the gas service station, the use itself is not
changing.
Car washes are permitted by conditional use permit within the C-l zone (Chapter 21.26
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code). For all properties within the Village Redevelopment
Area, the redevelopment permit serves as the appropriate permit for conditional uses. A
separate conditional use permit is not required. However, the DRB must make findings
to ensure that the project is compatible with surrounding properties. These findings are
presented later in this report.
The original Conditional Use Permit approved for the gas station by the Planning
Commission, prior to 1981, was converted to a redevelopment permit by the Design
Review Board on May 28, 1986. On May 28, 1986, the Board also approved an
expansion of the work bay area on the site. At that time, the Board was required to
make findings that the gas station complied with existing standards for service stations.
The appropriate findings were made and the redevelopment permit was approved for a
five year period. The service station did not process a request for an extension of the
subject permit. Therefore, technically, the redevelopment permit approved in 1986 has
expired. However, because the station has remained in compliance with its original
conditions of approval and no complaints have been raised by surrounding property
owners/neighbors regarding operations, the service station with work bays has been
permitted to remain.
Under the regulations in effect at the time the applicant filed the permit application for
the subject development, gas stations are a permitted land use. They do not require a
conditional use permit which typically will have a time limit applied to it. Therefore, with
approval of Design Review Board Resolution Nos. 249 and 250, approval will be
granted to the Union Oil Company for 1) the continuance of the gas service station use
(without time limits); 2) demolition of the existing work bays and mini-mart; and, 3) new
construction of an express car wash (with a stated time limit).
At the April 17” meeting, the Design Review Board expressed interest in pursuing a
time restriction on the redevelopment/coastal development permit to ensure continued
compliance with the original conditions of approval for the redevelopment permit related
to the gas station use. Staff was recommending against a time limit on both the car
wash and gas station uses. Since the April 17” meeting, staff has had some additional
internal discussions regarding the applicability of time limits to the subject permits.
Rather than processing an amendment to the original redevelopment permit, staff has
4
decided that it is more appropriate to process an entirely new major redevelopment
permit for both the car wash and existing gas station. As stated previously, under the
applicable regulations, a car wash is a conditional use and the gas station is a
permitted use. Therefore, a time limit may be applicable to the car wash use but is not
applicable to the gas station use. At the April 17”’ meeting, the Board was considering
the standard 5 year permit for the gas station. Staff discussed this issue with the
applicant. The applicant is willing to accept a time limit on the permit but would prefer a
ten (10) year time limit, rather than the standard five (5) year, with unlimited ten (10)
year extensions. For information purposes, the Board has approved ten (10) year
permits at other locations within the Village Redevelopment Area and staff believes that
a ten (10) year permit is more reasonable than a five (5) year permit due to the amount
of investment required by the applicant to complete the proposed project. This condition
for a 10 year time frame on the permit has been incorporated into the resolution
approving the project conditions. It should be noted, however, that this permit time limit
will apply to the car wash use only. The approval of DRB Resolution Nos. 249 and 250
shall supersede the previous DRB Resolution (No. 72) which initially approved the gas
station for the site. The previous permit for the gas station and work bays has expired.
The new permits will allow the continued operation of the gas station for an indefinite
period of time and will allow the car wash operations for a minimum of ten (10) years.
In the new Village Master Plan and Design Manual, which will soon become effective in
the Coastal Zone of the Village, the subject property is located within Land Use District
2; this district allows for gas stations, as a provisional use, and car washes, as an
accessory use. The gas station must be operating, as the primary land use for the
property, in order for the car wash use to be continued in the future. A “stand alone” car
wash will not be permitted under the new Village Master Plan and Design Manual. With
approval of the subject redevelopment and coastal development permits, the proposed
uses are consistent with the existing Village Design Manual as well as the new Village
Master Plan and Design Manual.
Development and Design Standards: The Village Design Manual states that all new
development within the Village Redevelopment Area should improve general on-site
circulation, meet design guidelines for the buildings and improvements on the site, and
utilize more landscaping. To address these issues, the following improvements to the
site shall be made as part of the proposed project:
l The circulation on the site will be improved through the reorientation of the
canopies and fuel pumps and the applicant’s efforts to manage the on-site
circulation in accordance with the proposed on-site circulation plan.
l The project will provide for 13% landscaping which will visually improve the
site in a substantial manner. The site currently has very limited landscaping
with marginally acceptable plant types. The new landscaping will add color
and visual interest to the site.
5
l The proposed building, kiosk and canopy design are consistent with the
guidelines set forth within the existing Village Design Manual (in effect at time
of application) as well as the new Village Master Plan and Design Manual
approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Commission and effective as
of January 12, 1996.
Since the new land use for the subject property is the car wash, staff will discuss the
typical problem areas for car washes below. Problem areas are typically: 1) insufficient
queuing areas; 2) poor internal circulation; 3) insufficient drying areas; and 4) excessive
water use.
Queuina Area. The Engineering Standard for queuing areas is 5 car lengths or 100 feet.
Union Oil redesigned their project several times to provide for the adequate queuing
space which could be deemed acceptable to the Engineering Department. The final
queuing area provided by Union Oil on the plans presented for approval complies with
the Engineering Standard.
Internal Circulation. As indicated above, the project was redesigned several times as
instructed by City Staff to ensure that the circulation related to the use of the car wash
together with the fueling pumps was acceptable. Although the circulation on the site is
not ideal, it satisfies the concerns of staff and meets existing standards in that it allows
for a “pass-through” area between the fuel pumps in order for vehicles to access the car
wash regardless of whether or not they are also purchasing fuel on the site. In the
resolution recommended by staff for approval, a condition has been placed on the
project which requires traffic flow within the property to be managed by the applicant in
such a manner as to minimize the impact on Harding Street and Carlsbad Village Drive,
as well as neighboring properties.
As a result of concerns expressed by the Design Review Board on April 17*, the
applicant has developed an on-site circulation plan. A copy of this circulation plan is
included in the attached Exhibits. The plan proposes that traffic for both the car wash
and the service station gas pumps enter from Harding Street and the southeast
driveway on Carlsbad Village Drive (nearest to Harding Street). The patrons of the car
wash would be directed by an attendant to exit onto Harding Street, unless they are
then going to purchase fuel. One-way circulation only (east to west) will be permitted
through the fueling area. The one-way driveways will be marked with the appropriate
“entrance only” and “exit only” signs. The applicant believes that with clearly marked
pavement delineation and directional signs, the driveways will not pose traffic safety or
congestion problems. Staff supports the on-site circulation plan developed by the
applicant.
Staff also worked with the applicant to redesign the fueling area and southwest
driveway for the project to address any concerns related to the ability of fuel trucks to
6
enter and exit the site without causing damage to public or private property. The issues
related to the circulation for the fuel trucks have been resolved to the satisfaction of
Engineering Staff. Staff is suggesting, however, that a condition be placed on the
project to restrict fuel deliveries to the hours between 9:OOpm and 6:OOam; this is due
to the fact that the car wash is proposed to be open from 7:OOam to 8:OOpm. With the
car wash open, a fuel delivery could substantially impact the flow of traffic on the site. If
vehicles are unable to exit the car wash facility, there is a potential for vehicles to “back
up” into the fuel delivery area. If the hours of operation for the car wash are reduced or
increased, the hours for fuel delivery will need to be modified as well.
D&o Areas. The PROWASH EXPRESS CAR WASH proposed by the applicant
features a 40’ state-of-the-art soft cloth car wash with exterior only cleaning. An
attendant will guide the customer into the car wash tunnel. Customers will remain in
their cars as they travel through the tunnel on an automatic conveyor. A’second
attendant will quickly towel dry the car once it leaves the conveyor. The wash will take 2
to 3 minutes from start to finish and no drying area is required.
Originally, the project plans included a coin-operated vacuum unit which would be
available for customer use in the parking area. Since this vacuum unit created noise
which was difficult to mitigate in a satisfactory manner and could potentially create a
parking shortage, staff instructed the applicant to remove the unit from the plans. The
applicant has agreed to the removal of the vacuum unit as reflected in the proposed/
revised plans.
Excessive Water Use/Drainacre. The PROWASH EXPRESS SERVICE CAR WASH
uses reclaimed water - 80% of the water used to wash and rinse the car is reclaimed.
All the water used to wash and rinse the car is captured in the conveyor trench. From
the trench, the water is drained to clarifier tanks where suspended solids settle to the
bottom of the tanks as the water flows through them. Clear water is then transferred
from the clarifier tanks, through filters, for reuse. Compared to the 75 gallons of water
typically used in a driveway washing, only 13 gallons of fresh water is needed to wash
each car. This facility will actually help to minimize residential driveway car washing
and chemical inflow into the storm drain system.
Within the resolution recommended for approval by the DRB, a condition has been
proposed for the project which requires Union Oil to comply with the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). This condition requires Union Oil to submit a
comprehensive drainage plan for the entire site. This drainage plan, which must be
approved by the City Engineer prior to building permit issuance, will require that the site
is adequately draining into the City’s sewer/storm drain system. Also, it will ensure that
the best management practices are used to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable
level prior to discharge into the storm drain system.
-
.
At the April 17” Design Review Board hearing, the property owner who owns property
behind the existing station (to the north) expressed concern about water from the car
wash draining onto her property. Currently, when the gas station is washed down, the
water apparently runs onto the adjacent property owner’s parking lot; this is primarily
due to the fact that there is no curb or wall to prevent the water from flowing north to her
property. The applicant has prepared a conceptual drainage plan which indicates that a
masonry wall and/or concrete curb will be installed along the property line for the full
length of the property. Also, the site will be graded to ensure that the water flows to the
south. This drainage plan further indicates that storm water and “hose down” water will
be collected before it leaves the site by V-gutters and trench drains. The water will then
be conveyed underground to the City’s storm drainage system.
Engineering Staff has reviewed the conceptual drainage plan submitted by the
applicant and is satisfied that the drainage issues have been appropriately addressed
within the revised plans.
Grow& Management The proposed project is located within Local Facilities
Management Zone 1 in the northwest quadrant of the City. The project complies with
the adopted performance standards for Zone 1 of the Local Facilities Management
Plan. The impacts on public facilities created by the proposed project and compliance
with the adopted performance standards are summarized below:
Facility Impacts
City Administration Facility N/A
Library N/A
Waste Water Treatment 2 EDUs
Parks N/A
Drainage N/A
Circulation 2,100 ADT
Fire Station #I
Open Space N/A
Schools N/A
Sewer Collection System 2 EDUs
Water Distribution System 660 GPD
Compliance w/ Standard
N/A
N/A
Yes
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
8
Car Wash Findings: As mentioned earlier in this report, the following findings must be
made and/or the following conditions must exist in order to permit a car wash use at the
subject site:
1. The site shall be designed to reduce the visual impacts of buildings and
waiting cars on surrounding development and from public streets.
The car wash building has been designed to be consistent with the new guidelines for
the Village Redevelopment Area. The queuing area for the car wash has been
screened by landscaping. Also, the landscaping for the site includes several trees
which will soften building facades. As such, the building and car wash queuing areas
have been designed to reduce visual impacts.
2. All structures shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with
surrounding development.
The area in which the proposed project is located includes a variety of architectural
styles. The proposed structures on the site will have finishes, coloring, and landscaping
which is consistent with the new Village Master Plan and Design Manual and also
compatible with surrounding development.
3. A noise analysis addressing noise impacts on surrounding development
may be required for the car wash.
Based on the initial data submitted by the applicant, it was determined that the self-
service car wash would result in no increase in noise levels on the site. However, as a
result of concerns expressed by surrounding property owners during the public hearing
on April 17*, the applicant agreed to conduct a Noise Analysis prior to action being
taken on the requested permits. The Noise Analysis conducted by the applicant, did
identify noise levels at the northwest property line which substantially exceeded the San
Diego County Noise Ordinance Limits. Therefore, it was determined that some
mitigation efforts are required. The applicant has redesigned the project to mitigate the
increased noise levels.
It should be noted that the results of the Noise Analysis indicate that even using the
worst case assumptions, the worst case offices adjacent to the proposed car wash will
experience an interior noise level of about 52.1 LEQ(H); which refers to the Equivalent
Hourly Noise Level. This is below the City of Carlsbad’s adopted interior noise guideline
of 55 LEQ(H) for offices. A complete copy of the Noise Analysis is included within the
Exhibits distributed to the Design Review Board.
Previous studies conducted by the applicant indicated that most of the noise generated
from car wash operations stems from the air dryer. A typical dryer produces 83 decibels
at five (5) feet from the source. The proposed car wash will be using the Wind Shear Air
9
Dryer/blower with a silencer manufactured by Proto-Vest, Inc. The proposed
dryer/blower (including the silencer) will generate a noise level of approximately 75
decibels at a distance of 40 feet from the source; this is considered to be moderately
loud and comparable to the noise made by living room music or the freeway from 50
feet away. As mentioned above, Unocal has taken actions in the design of the car wash
facility to mitigate these noise levels to an acceptable standard (see Noise Analysis for
details).
To help minimize the impact of the noise from the blower/dryer, Unocal has placed the
dryer as far back as possible from the exit end of the tunnel as well as reduced the
height of the exit door to 10 feet. Also, Unocal has oriented the air intake opening
toward the interior back wall, which will be constructed with 8 inch masonry blocks. The
roof is proposed to consist of concrete tiles, with glass skylights. No openings or holes
are proposed on the roof of the car wash building. Wing walls will also be constructed
of masonry block; these walls will be 12 feet high and extend 10 feet beyond the
entrance and exit end of the tunnel. Additionally, 6 foot masonry walls will run the full
length of the property on the north property line; this will assist in preventing any noise
from traveling to the north.
The applicant is able to mitigate any increased noise levels above the acceptable levels
through the proposed design of the project. Therefore, no additional mitigation
conditions are required as part of the project approvals.
4. A traffic study which analyzes the impact of the proposed car wash on
adjacent and nearby intersections may be required. The limits of this study
shall be established by the Planning Director.
The projected Average Daily Traffic (ADTs) for the proposed project is a total count of
2100; this is broken down to 1200 ADTs for the gas station and 900 ADTs for the car
wash. Per Unocal, it is anticipated that the capacity of the car wash at maturity will be
only 200 vehicles daily. Engineering staff reviewed the traffic impacts to be created by
the proposed project and determined that the impacts are in compliance with adopted
performance standards. The street system serving the proposed project is adequate to
properly handle all traffic to be generated by the proposed project. The increase in ADT
from the existing 1540 to 2100 will not affect circulation issues adjacent to
development. Since there are no major traffic or circulation issues associated with this
proposed project, the Engineering Department, together with the Planning and
Redevelopment Departments, has determined that additional traffic studies are not
necessary. The applicant has successfully demonstrated that semi-truck access and
circulation can be accommodated on the site with a minor modification to driveway
access.
10
5. Adequate parking and circulation shall be provided onsite to accommodate
the proposed use.
Under the existing Village Design Manual, the on-site parking requirements are set
according to Chapter 21.44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Within the Municipal Code,
there are no parking requirements, or comparable parking requirements, for gas
stations or car washes. Although this may seem unusual, when we consider the basic
service to be provided by the express car wash or gas station, it is easier to understand
why there would be no parking required for these type of land uses. A customer fueling
his/her car is able to simply leave the car in the fueling location and use any of the other
facilities on the site, such as the phone or the restroom. Additionally, the car wash is
designed so that no parking is required for drying purposes. Although no parking is
technically required, Unocal has proposed to provide three (3) parking spaces on site, a
handicap and two regular spaces. These spaces will be available to persons who wish
to use the restroom, the air and water units and/or the telephone (which will be provided
for “call out” purposes only). The vacuum unit, originally proposed by the applicant and
discussed by the Board, has been removed from the plan. The applicant will also enter
into a Shared Parking Agreement with a neighboring property owner, or owners, for the
purposes of providing off-site employee parking. Consequently, the parking on the site
will be used by customers only, with the exception that a handicapped employee will be
permitted to park on the site.
Access to the site will be provided from Carlsbad Village Drive and Harding Street. To
improve circulation on the site, the canopies for the service station fueling areas are
being reoriented to run east to west and a pass through area has been created in the
center of the canopy area to allow customers to access the car wash. The car wash can
be accessed from Harding Street or Carlsbad Village Drive. The Engineering
Department has determined that adequate space has been provided on the site for
queuing of vehicles.
The Engineering Department has also determined that the street system serving the
site can accommodate the proposed traffic to the site. Also, the applicant has agreed to
manage the on-site circulation in an attempt to reduce the impact on the public streets
and neighboring properties.
6. Waiting areas for cars are to be screened by a combination of landscaping,
fencing and berming.
Visual impacts from waiting cars at the entrance to the car wash will be reduced
through the use of landscaped planters which include several trees. The landscaped
areas will be on both sides of the driveway, or vehicle waiting areas, into the proposed
car wash. These areas will include various types of shrubs and flowering plants which
will be visually appealing as well as provide a screen to the waiting cars. The project
5 0
has been conditioned for the owner to maintain all of the landscaping in a healthy and
thriving condition.
In addition, the entrance to the car wash will be oriented to the west which faces an
alley and the side of the adjacent bank building. Due to the size of the site, staff does
not believe that additional fencing and/or berming would be desirable for screening
purposes. The site is better served by creating a more open feel as demonstrated with
the proposed landscaping and hardscape.
7. All signs shall comply with an approved sign program, or if none, the City’s
Sign Ordinance.
The signs for the project will be approved under separate permit. A sign program has
not been, nor will be, required for the site. Within the approving resolutions, the subject
project has been conditioned to require all sign permits to be consistent with the
Village Design Manual in effect at the time of sign permit application and to obtain
approval from the Housing and Redevelopment Director prior to installation. Unless
otherwise stated, the Village Design Manual supersedes the City’s Sign Ordinance
within the Village Redevelopment Area. Depending on the timing for the sign permits,
the standards set forth in the new Village Master Plan and Design Manual may apply to
the project. Staff believes that the new Village Master Plan and Design Manual provides
for much more appropriate sign types and sizes for the Village Area. Regardless of
which regulations are ultimately applied to the project, however, the applicant will not be
permitted to retain the existing pole sign or replace it with a new pole sign on the site.
8. Adequate means of eliminating grease and oils from drainage systems
shall be provided.
As indicated in the analysis above, the project will be conditioned to comply with the
City’s requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit. This condition will ensure that the best management practices are used to
reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge into the storm drain
system.
Iv. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Director had originally determined that the project was categorically
exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Based on the results of the applicant-initiated Noise Analysis, however, this initial
determination was rescinded on May 29, 1996. A new Environmental Review was
completed and the Planning Director issued a Negative Declaration for the project on
June 12, 1996. A thirty (30) day review and comment period was noticed for the
Negative Declaration. The comment period ended on July 12, 1996. The Planning
Department received one (1) response from the public which has been attached for
12
review. The primary concerns expressed were on-site parking and circulation as related
to Harding Street.
As staff has indicated within this report, the applicant has successfully met the
standards set forth by the City. The project’s design and conditions of approval will
prevent significant impacts to noise, on-site circulation, land use compatibility and/or
urban pollutant impacts. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the project. With
approval of Design Review Board Resolution No. 248, the Negative Declaration for the
project will be approved.
V. SUMMARY
As proposed, the proposed project, which includes the existing service station and a
new car wash facility, 1) is consistent with the General Plan, the Village
Redevelopment Plan and the Village Design Manual, which permits the gas station use;
2) complies with the requirements for findings required to approve a conditional car
wash use; 3) is in conformance with the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan; and
4) has a Negative Declaration for Environmental Review under the California
Environmental Quality Act. Therefore, staff recommends approval of RP 96-03 and
CDP 95-05 based on the findings and subject to the conditions found in the attached
resolutions.
VI. ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Design Review Board Resolution No. 248, dated August 7, 1996
Design Review Board Resolution No. 249, dated August 7, 1996
Design Review Board Resolution No. 250, dated August 7, 1996
Location Map
Background Data Sheet
Disclosure Form
Applicant Issues Report with attachments, including Noise Analysis and reduced
exhibits.
Full Exhibits “A” - “G”, August 7, 1996
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2i
2t
_-
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO: 248
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR A MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT
AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW THE
DEMOLITION OF WORK BAYS AT AN EXISTING UNOCAL
GAS STATION, TO CONTINUE THE EXISTING GAS STATION
USE, AND TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
EXPRESS CAR WASH AT 880 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE
ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF CARLSBAD VILLAGE
DRIVE AND HARDING STREET.
APN: 203-354-l 6
CASE NAME: UNOCAL GAS STATION AND CAR WASH
CASE NO: RP 96-03/CDP 95-05
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 7”’ day of August, 1996 hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request for a Negative
Declaration; and,
WHEREAS, at said public hearing and upon considering all testimony and
arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff and
the applicant, and considering any written comments received, the Design Review
Board considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Design Review Board
as follows: ‘ -
A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design
Review Board hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to the
one page notice and the EIA Part II Form attached hereto and made a part
hereof, based on the following findings:
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DRB Reso. No. 248
RP 96-03/CDP 95-05
Findings:
1. The Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and
considered Negative Declaration (RP 96-03), the environmental impacts therein
identified for this project and any comments thereon, the Design Review Board finds
that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the
environment and thereby approves the Negative Declaration.
2. The Design Review Board finds that the Negative Declaration (RP 96-03) reflects
the independent judgment of the Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design
Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7* day of August, 1996 by
the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
KIM WELSHONS, Chairperson
Design Review Board
EVAN E. BECKER
I Housing and Redevelopment Director
Gitv of C-h&bad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: 880 Carlsbad Villa; Drive, Carlsbad, California
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 construction consisting of a 1,000 square foot drive&m 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 California Environmental
Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance 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 Pahnas Drive, Carlsbad, California 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) 438-1161, extension 4441.
DATED:
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
PUBLISH DATE:
JUNE 12,1996
MICHAEL J. HOaMILtiR
RP 8607(A)/CDP 95-05 Planning Director
UNOCAL GAS STATION AND CAR WASH
JUNE 12,1996
2075 Las Palmas Dr. . Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576 l (619) 438-1161 l FAX (619) 438-0894 @
s
ENVIF&NMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FuRM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: RI’ 86-07(A)/CDP 95-05
DATE: June 6. 1996
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: UNCKXL GAS STATION AND CAR WASH
2. APPLICANT: John Muruhv - Proiect Manager/UNOCAL
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPICANT: 555 Anton Blvd. Costa Mesa CA 92626
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: May 17.1996
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTON: The nroiect 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 imorovements including north/south
oriented gas numo bavs, a mini-mart/restrooms and fir11 service automotive repair work bays and
reconstruction/redeveloDment of the site consistinp of a 1 .OOO square foot enclosed drive-thm car
wash. east/west oriented gas puma bavs. and aunroximatelv 400 square feet of storage. restroom
and cashier’s area. A mini-mart is not uronosed with this project. The prouosed nroiect is
reflected in detail on exhibits on file in the Planning DeDartment at 2075 Las Palmas Drive and
the Housing and Redevelonment office at 2965 B Roosevelt Street The uroiect has been
designed to not create anv sieniticant environmental imuacts with resnect to noise,
drainage/nohutant run-off or traffic circulation. The oroiect is consistent with Redeveloument’s
Village Design Manual.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS PO TElauILYAFFEcTED
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.
0 Land Use and Planning q Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities 4% Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
cl Water cl Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
@Air Quality Cl Recreation
1 Rev. 03t28196
0 Mandatory Findings of Signif: -‘w
2 Rev. 03/28/96
57
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the tiad Agency)
lzl
Cl
0
cl
0
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLAIWTION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this ease because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An NEGATIVE
DECLARATION is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be
addressed.
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
Date
3 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.
l 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.
0 “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.
0 “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.
l “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
l Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but fl 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).
0 when “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzcd adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuan t to that earlier EIR.
0 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.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
l If there are one cmore potentially significant effects, tb?ity may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are m,~lgation measures to clearly reduce impabis 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.
l 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. 03LW96
Issues (and Supporting Info-tion Sources).
Source #!: General Plan Final Master ElR 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)
4
cl
d)
e)
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): 0
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? ()
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
0 Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or famkmds, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? ()
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of
established community (including a low-income
minority community)? 0
an
or
II. POPULATION AND HOUSMG. Would the proposal:
a)
b)
c)
Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ()
Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? 0
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? 0
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
a)
b)
d
d)
e)
9
g)
h)
9
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? ()
Seismic ground shaking? 0
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? 0
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? 0
Landslides or mudflows? 0
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ()
Subsidence of the land? 0
Expansive soils? ()
Unique geologic or physical features? (J
IV. WATER Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? 0
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
MY? 0
6
Potentially-” Potentially
Significar.
Impad
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
incorporated
0
0
0
q
0
q
0
q
Cl cl cl cl q Cl
cl Cl q
Cl
0
0
0
Cl
0
cl
cl
q
cl
cl
cl
0 cl 0 cl 0 0
Cl cl 0
0
0
0
0
Less Than
Signiikan
t Impact
cl
Cl
cl
Cl
cl
cl
0
Cl
cl
0
cl
Cl
cl
0
cl
cl
0
cl
0
El
0
No Impact
Ix1
IZJ
lxl
Ix)
El
Ix1
lzl
Ix)
IXI
IXI
Ix1
(XI
El
IXI
(XI
IXI
IXI
lz
Ix1
Ix1
IXI
Rev. 03l2gl96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). -
Source #I: General Plan Fin. .vlaster EIR 93-01 as approved
and certified by City Council Resolution No. 94-246.
. Source #2: Noise Report Dated June 32, 1996
e)
9
I31
h)
1)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? 0
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? 0
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwatef? ()
Impacts to groundwater quality? ()
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 #I)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ()
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? 0
d) Create objectionable odors? ()
VI. TR4NSPORTATIONKIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Source
#I) b) Hazards to safety fkom design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? 0
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
0 d) Insuffkient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 0
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ()
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (‘)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ()
VI!. 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 bii? 0
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? 0
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ()
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
0 e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0
Portntially Potentially Less Than NO
Si8nificanl -Significant Signitican Impact
Impad Unless t Impact
Mitigation Incorporated
a
0
cl IXI
0 IXI
cl
q
0 cl cl
Ix1
cl q
cl
lxl
Cl
0
cl cl cl
Cl
cl
0 0
0
0
0 0 El
Cl
0 cl
cl
Cl
cl
0
cl 0 0
0
0
0 0
Cl
0
0 IXI El x
Cl ixI
0 cl
0 151 Cl Ix1
cl Ix1
0 Cl
0 Ix1
0 (x1
0 IXI 0 Ix1 0 IXI
0 El
0 IXI
0 Ix1 Cl Ix1
Cl ixI
cl Cl
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
7 Rev. 03t28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). -
Source #I : General Plan I-. ,r 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? 0
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? 0
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a)
W
cl
4
e)
A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? 0
Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? 0
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? 0
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? ()
Increase fue hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? 0
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
a)
W
cl
4
e)
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services iu any of the following areas:
Fire protection? 0
Police protection? 0
Schools? 0
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 0
Other governmental services? 0
Xll.UTILlTIES 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? 0
b) Communications systems? ()
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? 0
d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0
e) Storm water drainage? ()
f) Solid waste disposal? 0
g) Local or regional water supplies? 0
Potentially
Significwh
Impact
cl 0
Cl
0
cl
cl
0
0
0
cl
cl
Cl
0
cl
•J
Cl
0
cl
Cl
Cl
cl
cl
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0
Cl
0
Cl
Cl
0
0
Cl 0
0
0
cl
Cl
0
0
0
cl
0
0
LcssTllan
Significan I Impact
0
cl
El
0
0
0
cl
cl
IXI
lzl
cl
El
Cl
0
0
0
cl
Cl
cl
cl
0
Cl
No
Impact
Ix1
Ix1
lzl
IXI
(XI
La
El
IXJ
cl
cl
la
Ixi
lx
lx
lx
IXI
Ix1
[x1
Ix)
lrzl
ixI
lx
8 Rev. 03l28l96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Source #I : General Plan I. .l Master EIR 93-01 as approved
and certified by City Council Resolution No. 94-246.
. Source #2: Noise Report Dated June 32. 1996
XI!!. AESTHETIkS. Would the proposal:
4 Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? ()
W Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? ()
cl Create light or glare? ()
XIV.
a)
b)
cl
4
4
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? ()
Disturb archaeological resources? ()
Affect historical resources? 0
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? 0
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? 0
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a)
b)
XV!.
a)
b)
cl
XVII.
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? ()
Affect existing recreational opportunities? ()
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
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 mnge of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
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)?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
EARLIER ANALYSES.
Potentially Potentially Significant-. Significant
Impact Unless
Mitigation
lncotporated
0 0 0
El
Cl 0 0
0
0
cl
0
0
0
0 0
cl
0
Cl
cl 0
q
0
cl
0
0
0
Less Than Sipnifican
t Impact
0 0
cl
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No
Impact
El
IXI
Ix1
lx!
El
lxl
lx
I8
El
1E3
txl
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)@). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
9 Rev. 03i28l96
4 Earlier x ‘-, rses used. Identify earlier analyses ar “,tate where they are available
for review. N/A
W 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 from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project N/A
10 Rev. 03l228196
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&u 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 alternative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
11 Rev. 03/28/96
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR ip”- ?t required because the certification of - al Master EIR 93-01, by City
Council Resolution No. 34-246, 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-tic 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
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway
onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been
incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumuIatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-&at&, therefore,
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” applies to all 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. 03L28196
VIII. Energy and Mine-’ 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 special&d 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. 03i28J96
XV. Recreation -
No recreational resources or opportunities are involved or required with this site or project.
14 Rev. 03/28/%
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (TF APPLICABLE)
Rev. 03LW96
7Q
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES I
-l-HIS IS TO CERTIFY ‘idT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE Wl-IGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
16 Rev. 03t28f96
_-
i2c. fib ..-. . . . I _..... --. SJL &*k &&?j?k-~7”@lf cm ?SQf ,--.,- - ..L- mc * . . . . V.--U..“*.-
_._..r &Q--h!@& -v_., - _ Mb tik---, - s&P dtyks “-y.2!c-x”~~~~r
_-_ pemw p o 6 Lr , ___- ___. ------.-- 3&?&!~~~ -*W-tiL. A!!L!p!$.~!~~- __C.--____
CON &r l?X __^.“” pc&tkr--Th G-- T”uTS., --__ - -. -“-“““.. -
-we”..-.,. --.-. ---_c- _-.-- - .---” “V --U_.----
“MI.““.“..--- . --b-w-* “--” .-P.----w- --- -----1--“.--_
-s-w--- --.-- ---. --Y-...---- . . w----q --.“..-
_ _ __. .- .__.--.. - .-- .-.“-“.-..-e--- - .- -.-- ._C c-..“--- Y-e.-.-. .- -.__-_
.
-. ..- ..--.. . . ., .*.1.1.-“---v-4 -_-- “- ---- -.-._
“. .“.“-C.-------...--“--. ------*mm”“..- --- -*- m---- --
. --.. -...-..* -*a-.-- - __ -A”“--b”.F--,-.-- ---1. . . .- --,
- ” .-----. . .- . ..“W.” --, - - ---- 7 .---w--p-. -C-d. “. a_- ..-- “._,“_
_ --,. a. I.,. “- -I o”.“” W.-w- .------- -w-v---
*
-- _-v. . *---- -“- --._ -.-.. _,.“,.. ,” m.-- .* -I”...-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.- -
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 249
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO
ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF WORK BAYS AT AN EXISTING
UNOCAL GAS STATION, TO CONTINUE THE EXISTING GAS
STATION USE, AND TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
NEW EXPRESS CAR WASH AT 880 CARLSBAD VILLAGE
DRIVE ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF CARLSBAD
VILLAGE DRIVE AND HARDING STREET.
CASE NAME: UNOCAL GAS STATION AND CAR WASH
CASE NO: RP 96-03
WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and
referred to the Design Review Board; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Redevelopment
Permit , as provided by Chapter 21.35 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Design
Review Board did, on the 17th day of April, 1996, hold a duly noticed public hearing to
consider said application on property described as:
Lots 29 through 32, Block 56, Town of Carlsbad, in the County of
San Diego, State of California, according to the map thereof No. 775
filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County
February 15,1895.
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did continue the public hearing on the
subject project from the 17” day of April,1996 to the 7”’ day of August, 1996 in order to
provide the applicant with additional time to address issues and concerns raised during
the public hearing; and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.-.
DRB Resolution No. .249
RP 96-03
WHEREAS, at said continued public hearing held on the 7’” day of August, 1996,
upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons
desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors relating to RP 96-03.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review Board
of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
b) That based on the evidence at the public hearing, the Design Review Board
recommends APPROVAL of RP 96-03, based on the following findings and
subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. The project is consistent with all City public facility policies and ordinances since:
a.
b.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
The Design Review Board has, by inclusion of an appropriate condition to
this project, ensured that the project will not be approved unless the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds that sewer service is
available to serve the project. In addition, the Design Review Board has
added a condition that a note shall be placed on the project that building
permits may not be issued for the project unless the District Engineer
determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot occur
within the project unless sewer service remains available, and the Design
Review Board is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities
Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to
sewer service for this project.
All necessary public improvements have been provided or will be required
as conditions of approval.
2
!
I
j
i
I /
!
I I
/
I
!
! I ,
1
I
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
.20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DRB Reso. No. 249
RP 96-03
_-
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
C. The applicant has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an
appropriate condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that
contract and payment of the fee will enable this body to find that public
facilities will be available concurrent with need as required by the General
Plan.
d. Assurances have been given that adequate sewer for the project will be
provided by the City of Carlsbad.
The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding land uses and future
land uses since surrounding properties are designated for freeway serving
commercial uses within the Village Redevelopment Plan and for “village” uses
within the General Plan.
The applicant is by condition, required to pay any increase in public facility fee,
or new construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any
additional requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan
prepared pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Cartsbad Municipal Code. This will
ensure continued availability of public facilities.
This project will not cause any significant environmental impacts and a Negative
Declaration has been issued by the Planning Director on June 12, 1996 and
approved by the Design Review Board on August 7, 1996.
This project is consistent with the City’s Growth Management Ordinance as it
has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the
Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1.
The proposed project complies with the findings necessary for approval of a car
wash as follows:
A. The site has been designed to reduce the visual impacts of buildings and
waiting cars on surrounding development and from public streets.
The car wash building has been designed to be consistent with the new
guidelines for the Village Redevelopment Area based on function of the
land uses. The queuing area for the car wash has been screened by
landscaping. Also, the landscaping for the site includes several trees
which will soften building facades. As such, the building and car wash
queuing areas have been designed to reduce visual impacts.
3
.
1 .
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
10
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
DRB Reso. No. 249
RP 96-03
B. All structures have been designed to be architecturally compatible with
surrounding development. The area in which the proposed project is
located includes a variety of architectural style. The proposed structures
on the site will have finishes, coloring, and landscaping which is
consistent with the new Village Master Plan and Design Manual and also
compatible with surrounding development.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
Based on the design of the project, the self-service car wash will result
in no increase in noise levels on the site which will have an adverse
impact on surrounding properties.
The street system serving the proposed project is adequate to properly
handle all traffic generated by the proposed project.
Adequate parking and circulation shall be provided onsite to
accommodate the proposed use. Access to the site will be provided from
Carlsbad Village Drive and Harding Street. To improve circulation on the
site, the canopies are being reoriented to run east to west and a pass
through area has been created in the center of the canopy area to allow
customers to easily access the car wash. The car wash can be accessed
from Harding Street or Carlsbad Village Drive. Adequate space has been
provided for queuing.
Waiting areas for cars will be screened by a combination of landscaping
and fencing. Visual impacts from waiting cars at the entrance to the car
wash will be reduced through the use of landscaped planters which
include several trees. The landscaped areas will be on both sides of the
driveway, or vehicle waiting areas, into the proposed car wash. These
areas will include various types of shrubs and flowering plants which will
be visually appealing as well as provide a screen to the waiting cars. The
project has been conditioned for the owner to maintain all of the
landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition. In addition, the entrance
to the car wash will be oriented to the west which faces an alley and the
side of the adjacent commercial (bank) building.
The signs for the project will be approved under separate permit. The
project has been conditioned to require the sign permit(s) to be consistent
with the Village Design Manual in effect at the time of sign permit
application.
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
10
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DRB Reso. No. 249
RP 96-03
H. Adequate means of eliminating grease and oils from drainage systems
shall be provided. The project has been conditioned to comply with the
City’s requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit. This condition will ensure that the best
management practices are used to reduce surface pollutants to an
acceptable level prior to discharge into the storm drain system.
7. That the service station is existing and remains consistent with the goals and
objectives for the Village Redevelopment Area and shall be allowed to continue
its operations subject to the conditions noted herein.
Conditions:
1.
2.
3.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
.*..
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. ..a
The Design Review Board does hereby recommend approval of RP 96-03 for
the Major Redevelopment Permit project entitled “Unocal Gas Station and Car
Wash”. (Exhibits A - G on file in the Housing and Redevelopment Department
and incorporated by this reference, dated August 7, 1996) subject to the
conditions herein set forth. Staff is authorized and directed to make or require
the Developer to make all corrections and modifications to the Redevelopment
Permit Documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and
conform to the final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially
as shown on the approved exhibits. Any proposed development substantially
different from this approval shall require an amendment to this approval.
The Developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24” X 36”, mylar copy of
the Site Plan as approved by the final decision making body. The Site Plan shall
reflect the conditions of approval by the City. The plan copy shall. be submitted to
the City Engineer and approved prior to building, grading, or improvement plan
submittal, whichever occurs first.
The Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan
check, a reduced, legible version of the approving resolutions on a 24” X 36”
blueline drawing. Said blueline drawings shall also include a copy of any
applicable Coastal Development Permit and signed approved site plan.
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
10
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
DRB Reso. No. 249
RP 96-03
4.
5.
6.
7.
0.
9.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless
the District Engineer determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of
application for such sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of
occupancy.
The Developer shall pay the public facilities fee adopted by the City Council on
July 28,1987 (amended July 2, 1991) and as amended from time to time, and
any development fees established by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 21.90
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code or other ordinance adopted to implement a
growth management system or Facilities and Improvement Plan and to fulfil1 the
Developer’s agreement to pay the public facilities fee dated May 13, 1986, a
copy of which is on file with the City Clerk and is incorporated by this reference.
If the fees are not paid, this application will not be consistent with the General
Plan and approval for this project will be void.
This project will comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are
required as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any
amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the
payment of any fees in lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law
on this project are challenged this approval shall be suspended as provided in
Government Code Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be
invalid this approval shall be invalid unless the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission determines that the project without the condition complies with all
requirements of law.
Approval of RP 96-03 is recommended for approval subject to the approval of
CDP 95-05. Approval of these new permits shall supersede all previous
approvals for the gas service station. The conditions set forth herein shall
represent the comprehensive list of conditions for the gas station with express
car wash.
Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a six foot high masonry wall with
gates pursuant to City standards. Location of said receptacles have been
approved as part of this Redevelopment Permit. Enclosure shall be
constructed as indicated on the approved Site Plan with coiors and/or materials
similar to the project.
DRB Reso. No. 249
RP 96-03
12
13
14
15
16
17
10
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, an exterior lighting plan including
parking areas shall be submitted for Planning Director or Housing and
Redevelopment Director approval. All lighting shall be designed to reflect
downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent property.
No outdoor storage of material shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire
Chief. In such instance, a storage plan will be submitted for approval by the Fire
Chief and Housing and Redevelopment Director.
Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing
buildings so as to be plainly visible from the street; color identification and/or
addresses shall contrast to their background color.
The car wash facility is approved with the hours of operation set from
7:OOam to 8:OOpm. The hours of operation of the car wash shall not be
modified without prior written approval from the Housing and
Redevelopment Director.
The car wash facility shall incorporate water recycling equipment into its
design.
The car wash facility is approved with the Wind Shear Air Dryer/Blower
with silencer manufactured by Proto-Vest, Inc. Other models may be used
by the developer, however, such equipment shall be reviewed and
approved by the Housing and Redevelopment Director and shall not
exceed a noise level of 60 LEQ(H) at 40 feet from the exit or entrance to the
car wash. Documentation that the noise generation potential of alternative
equipment shall be submitted for review and approval by the Housing and
Redevelopment Director.
The car wash facility is approved with the following noise reduction design
features:
a) Skylights in the car wash tunnel will be constructed of one quarter inch
laminated glass; and,
b) The height of the door at the exit end of the tunnel is reduced to ten feet
(10’); and,
c) A masonry wall six feet (6’) in height will be constructed to extend
forty-five feet (45’) beyond the entrance end of the tunnel, to the west
along the northern property line; and,
d) A masonry wall six feet (6’) in height will be constructed to extend
twenty feet (20’) beyond the exit end of the tunnel, to the east along the
northern property line; and,
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
10
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
17.
10.
19.
20.
21.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
DRB Reso. No. 249
RP 96-03
_-
e) The six foot (6’) masonry walls noted in paragraphs c) and d) above
will be landscaped with bougainvillea on both the south and north
elevations to ensure that these walls are more visually appealing; and
f) No vacuum unit to be located on the site at any time.
The applicant shall provide a restroom for public use at all times during
regular operating hours of the car wash and gas station.
The project is approved with the installation of telephone(s) for public use
which shall be limited to “call out” only.
The non-handicap parking spaces on the site shall be identified as for use
by “Customers Only”. The applicant shall enter into a parking agreement
with a private property owner within 600 feet of the project site for the
purposes of providing a total of three non-handicap employee parking
spaces for the Unocal Station. This parking agreement shall be approved
by Housing and Redevelopment Director prior to issuance of building
permits for the project.
The project is approved with the on-site circulation plan submitted by the
applicant, dated August 7,1996, which clearly identifies the traffic flow
patterns for the site. Appropriate directional signage shall be installed on
the site to direct the traffic flow patterns. Traffic flow within the property
must be managed by the applicant in such a manner to minimize the
impact on Harding Street and Carlsbad Village Drive, as well as
neighboring properties. In managing the traffic flow on the property,
alternate on-site circulation plans may be developed and implemented by
the applicant with prior written approval from the Housing and
Redevelopment Director.
Fuel deliveries to the gas station shall not be permitted during hours in
which the car wash facility is in operation. The project is approved with the
fuel delivery hours set from 9:OOpm to 6:OOam. If the hours of the car wash
are extended for any reason and prior written approval is granted by the
Housing and Redevelopment Director, the hours for the fuel deliveries
shall be reduced to appropriately reflect the hours in which the car wash is
not in operation.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
10
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DRB Reso. No. 249
RP 96-03
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
20.
The applicant is aware that the City is preparing a non-residential housing impact
fee (linkage fee) consistent with Program 4.1 of the Housing Element. The
applicant is further aware that the City may determine that certain non-residential
projects may be required to pay a linkage fee, in order to be found consistent
with the Housing Element of the General Plan. If a linkage fee is established by
City Council ordinance and/or resolution and this project becomes subject to a
linkage fee pursuant to said ordinance and/or resolution, then the applicant for
this project, or his/her/their successor(s) in interest shall pay the linkage fee. The
linkage fee shall be paid at the time of issuance of building permits. If linkage
fees are required for this project, and they are not paid, this project will not be
consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project will become null
and void.
Unless a standards variance has been issued, no variance from City Standards
is authorized by virtue of approval of this site plan.
The applicant shall comply with all the rules, regulations and design
requirements of the respective sewer and water agencies regarding services to
the project.
The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan in
conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City’s
Landscape Manual. The plans shall be submitted to and approval obtained from
the Planning Director or Housing and Redevelopment Director prior to the
approval of the grading or building permit, whichever occurs first. The applicant
shall construct and install all landscaping as shown on the approved plans, and
maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds,
trash and debris. All trees planted on the site shall be a minimum of fifteen
(15) gallons in size. Also, the Landscape Plan shall adequately screen the
north side wall and car wash drive through entrance from Carlsbad Village
Drive. The landscaping shall be monitored by the Housing and
Redevelopment Director and may require modification to the satisfaction
of the Housing and Redevelopment Director, if it is determined that the
landscaping is not providing appropriate screening of the car wash facility.
The applicant shall be responsible for coordination of S.D.G&E, Pacific Bell,
Telephone, and Cable TV authorities.
Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall pay all current fees and
deposits required.
Prior to approval of the building permit, the owner of the subject property shall
execute an agreement holding the City harmless regarding drainage across the
adjacent property.
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
10
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
DRB Reso. No. 249
RP 96-03
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
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.
The applicant shall apply for, obtain and maintain an industrial waste water
discharge permit concurrently with the building permit for this project and such
permit shall be in effect for the life of this amended redevelopment Permit.
Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from the site, the applicant
shall submit to and receive approval from the City Engineer for the proposed
haul route. The applicant shall comply with all conditions and requirements the
City Engineer may impose with regard to the hauling operation.
Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the
applicant shall submit a detailed Grading and Drainage Plan to the City Engineer
for approval which will mitigate potential flooding to adjacent properties.
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 on site.
The applicant shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPEDES) 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
and Streetscape reconstruction. All improvements shall conform to
Streetscape Phase 5 design plans. As part of the reconstruction of the
driveway approaches, the applicant shall be responsible for removing a
street light on Carlsbad Village Drive and delivering it to a site to be
designated by the City Engineer.
The area under the fuel canopy shall be constructed of concrete and shall
be designed to drain to a sump drain located under the canopy. A sump
pump shall be installed to pump the effluent from the canopy area up into a
holding tank. The holding tank shall be located within a self-contained
area. The effluent from the holding tank may be considered “Hazardous
Waste” and shall be disposed of the legal disposal of the “Hazardous
Waster” and shall produce them upon demand. The final design of this
collection facility shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The
design of any alternate facility that is intended to meet this condition shall
be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DRB Reso. No. 249
RP 96-03
35.
36.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, complete building plans shall be
submitted to and approved by the Fire Department.
Applicant shall submit a copy of the approved site plan to the Fire Department
showing access routes, driveways and general traffic circulation.
37.
38.
Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to
any changes being made to gasoline storage and dispensing facilities or
equipment.
The entire potable and non-potable water system/systems for subject property
shall be evaluated in detail to ensure that adequate capacity, pressure and flow
demands can be met.
39. Sequentially, the Developer’s Engineer shall do the following:
a) Meet with the City Fire Marshal and establish the fire protection
requirements. Also obtain G.P.M demand for domestic and irrigational
needs from appropriate parties.
W Prepare a colored reclaimed water use area map and submit to the
Planning Department for processing and approval.
c) Prior to the preparation of sewer, water and reclaimed water
improvement plans, a meeting must be scheduled with the District
Engineer for review, comment and approval of the preliminary system
layouts and usages (i.e., GPM - EDU).
40.
41.
. . . .
. . . .
. . .
The developer will be responsible for all water related fees and deposits plus the
major facility charge which will be collected at time of issuance of building permit.
The Developer shall pay a San Diego County Water Authority capacity charge
which will be collected at issuance of application for meter installations.
This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not
be issued for development of the subject property unless the water district
serving the development determines that adequate water and sewer is available
at the time of application for such water service and sewer permits will continue
to be available until time of occupancy.
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
10
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
DRB Reso. No. 249
RP 96-03
42. Any signs proposed for this development shall be designed in
conformance with the Carlsbad Redevelopment Village Design Manual
and/or City Sign Ordinance in effect at the time the sign permit application
is submitted by the applicant to the City of Carlsbad. No pole signs shall
be permitted at any time for this development. The sign permit application
shall require review and approval of the Housing and Redevelopment
Director prior to installation of any signs for this development.
43. If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time; if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the
right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition
issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all
certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted;
institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions
or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or
a successor in interest by the City’s approval of this Resolution.
44. This redevelopment permit is granted for a period of ten (10) years. This
redevelopment permit shall be reviewed by the Housing and Redevelopment
Director on a yearly basis to determine if all conditions of this permit have been
met and that the use does not have a significant detrimental impact on
surrounding properties or the public health and welfare. If the Housing and
Redevelopment Director determines that the use has such significant adverse
impacts, the Housing and Redevelopment Director shall recommend that the
Design Review Board, after providing the permittee the opportunity to be heard,
add additional conditions to mitigate the significant adverse impacts. This permit
may be revoked at any time after a public hearing, if it is found that the use has a
significant detrimental affect on surrounding land uses and the public’s health
and welfare, or the conditions imposed herein have not been met. This permit
may be extended for a reasonable period of time not to exceed ten (10) years
upon written application of the permittee made no less than 90 days prior to the
expiration date of the permit. In granting such extension, the Design Review
Board shall find that no substantial adverse affect on surrounding land uses or
the public’s health and welfare will result because of the continuation of the
permitted use. If a substantial adverse affect on surrounding land uses or the
public’s health and welfare is found, the extension shall be considered as an
original application for a redevelopment permit. There is no limit to the number of
extensions the Design Review Board may grant.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
12
.
1 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
10
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DRB Reso. No. 249
RP 96-03
45. Prior to the issuance of the building permits, there shall be a deed restriction
placed on the deed to this property, subject to the satisfaction of the Housing
and Redevelopment Director, notifying all interested parties and successors in
interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Negative Declaration and
Redevelopment Permit by Resolution Nos. 248 and 249 on the real property
owned by the declarant. Said deed restriction shall note the property description,
location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of
approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the
deed restriction. Said deed restriction(s) may be modified or terminated only with
the approval of the Housing and Redevelopment Director, Design Review Board
or Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad whichever
as final decision authority for this project.
Standard Code Reminders:
The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance, including but not limited to
the following code requirements:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
. . .
. . . .
The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required
by Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for
this project within 18 months from the date of project approval.
Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections
of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time
of building permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
This project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access
requirements pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code.
All roof appurtenances shall be architecturally integrated and concealed from
view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in substance
as provided in Building Department Policy No. 00-6, to the satisfaction of the
Directors of Housing and Redevelopment and Building.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
13
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
10
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DRB Reso. No. 249
RP 96-03
6. All landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared to conform with the
Landscape Manual and submitted per the landscape plan check procedures on
file in the Planning Department.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design
Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of August, 1996,
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
KIM WELSHONS, Chairperson
Design Review Board
EVAN E. BECKER
Housing and Redevelopment Director
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
10
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 250
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO
ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF WORK BAYS AT AN EXISTING
UNOCAL GAS STATION, TO CONTINUE THE EXISTING GAS
STATION USE, AND TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
NEW EXPRESS CAR WASH AT 880 CARLSBAD VILLAGE
DRIVE ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF CARLSBAD
VILLAGE DRIVE AND HARDING STREET.
CASE NAME: UNOCAL GAS STATION AND CAR WASH
CASE NO: CDP 95-05
WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and
referred to the Design Review Board; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal
Development Permit as provided by Chapter 21.81 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Design
Review Board did, on the 7th day of August, 1996, hold a duly noticed public hearing to
consider said application on property described as:
Lots 29 through 32, Block 56, Town of Carlsbad, in the County of
San Diego, State of California, according to the map thereof No. 775
filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County
February 15,1895.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all
factors relating to CDP 95-05.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review Board
of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
. . . .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DRB Reso. No. 250
CDP 95-05
a) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
W That based on the evidence at the public hearing, the Design Review Board
recommends APPROVAL of Coastal Development Permit 95-05, based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. The project is consistent with all City public facility policies and ordinances since:
a. The Design Review Board has, by inclusion of an appropriate condition to
this project, ensured that the project will not be approved unless the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission finds that sewer service is
available to serve the project. In addition, the Design Review Board has
added a condition that a note shall be placed on the project that building
permits may not be issued for the project unless the District Engineer
determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot occur
within the project unless sewer service remains available, and the Design
Review Board is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities
Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to
sewer service for this project.
b. All necessary public improvements have been provided or will be required
as conditions of approval.
C; The applicant has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an
appropriate condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that
contract and payment of the fee will enable this body to find that public
facilities will be available concurrent with need as required by the General
Plan.
d. Assurances have been given that adequate sewer for the project will be
provided by the City of Carlsbad.
2. The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding land uses and future land
uses since surrounding properties are designated for freeway serving commercial
uses within the Village Redevelopment Plan and for “village” uses within the General
Plan.
3. The proposed project is located within the City of Carlsbad’s Village Segment of the
California Coastal Zone and it has been determined by the City of Cartsbad that no
coastal resources or implementing policies will be adversely impacted by approval of
the subject project.
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
26
DRB Reso. No. 250
COP 95-05
4. The applicant is by condition, required to pay any increase in public facility fee,
or new construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any
additional requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan
prepared pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will
ensure continued availability of public facilities.
5. This project will not cause any significant environmental impacts and a Negative
Declaration has been issued by the Planning Director on June 12, 1996 and
approved by the Design Review Board on August 7,1996.
6. This project is consistent with the City’s Growth Management Ordinance as it
has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the
Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1.
7. The proposed project complies with the findings necessary for approval of a car
wash as follows:
A.
B.
C.
D.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
The site has been designed to reduce the visual impacts of buildings and
waiting cars on surrounding development and from public streets.
The car wash building has been designed to be consistent with the new
guidelines for the Village Redevelopment Area based on function of the
land uses. The queuing area for the car wash has been screened by
landscaping. Also, the landscaping for the site includes several trees
which will soften building facades. As such, the building and car wash
queuing areas have been designed to reduce visual impacts.
All structures have been designed to be architecturally compatible with
surrounding development. The area in which the proposed project is
located includes a variety of architectural styles. The proposed structures
on the site will have finishes, coloring, and landscaping which is
consistent with the new Village Master Plan and Design Manual and also
compatible with surrounding development.
Based on the design of the project, the self-service car wash will result in
no increase in noise levels on the site which will have an adverse impact
on surrounding properties.
The street system serving the proposed project is adequate to properly
handle all traffic generated by the proposed project.
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DRB Reso. No. 250
CDP 95-05
E. Adequate parking and circulation shall be provided onsite to
accommodate the proposed use. Access to the site will be provided from
Carlsbad Village Drive and Harding Street. To improve circulation on the
site, the canopies are being reoriented to run east to west and a pass
through area has been created in the center of the canopy area to allow
customers to easily access the car wash. The car wash can be accessed
from Harding Street or Carlsbad Village Drive. Adequate space has been
provided for queuing.
F. Waiting areas for cars will be screened by a combination of landscaping
and fencing. Visual impacts from waiting cars at the entrance to the car
wash will be reduced through the use of landscaped planters which
include several trees. The landscaped areas will be on both sides of the
driveway, or vehicle waiting areas, into the proposed car wash. These
areas will include various types of shrubs and flowering plants which will
be visually appealing as well as provide a screen to the waiting cars. The
project has been conditioned for the owner to maintain all of the
landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition. In addition, the entrance
to the car wash will be oriented to the west which faces an alley and the
side of the adjacent bank building.
G. The signs for the project will be approved under separate permit. The
project has been conditioned to require the approved sign permit to be
consistent with the Village Design Manual in effect at the time of sign
permit application.
H. Adequate means of eliminating grease and oils from drainage systems
shall be provided. The project has been conditioned to comply with the
City’s requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit. This condition will ensure that the best
management practices are used to reduce surface pollutants to an
acceptable level prior to discharge into the storm drain system.
8. That the service station is existing and remains consistent with the goals and
objectives for the Village Redevelopment Area and shall be allowed to remain
subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Design Review Board Resolution
No. 249, dated August 7, 1996.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
4
1 .
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORB Reso. No. 250
CDP 95-05
CONDITIONS:
1. The Design Review Board does hereby recommend approval of CDP 95-05,
for the project entitled “Unocal Gas Station and Car Wash” as shown on Exhibits
‘A” - “G”, on file in the Housing and Redevelopment Department, dated August
7, 1996, incorporated herein by reference and subject to the conditions herein
set forth. Staff is authorized and directed to make or require the Developer to
make all corrections and modifications to the Coastal Development Permit
documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and conform to the
final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on
the approved exhibits. Any proposed development substantially different from
this approval shall require an amendment to this approval.
..#.
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DRB Reso. No. 250
CDP 95-05
2. Approval of CDP 95-05 is subject to approval of RP 96-03. CDP 95-05 is subject
to all conditions contained in Design Review Board Resolution No. 249 dated
August 7, 1996 for RP 96-03, the Unocal Gas Station and Car Wash project.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design
Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of August, 1996,
the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
KIM WELSHONS, Chairperson
Design Review Board
EVAN E. BECKER
Housing and Redevelopment Director
GRAND AVENUE
c
Office
L Arco Bank Gas Station
1
CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE Project
Site
Church Parking
N
W
+
E
+ s
CITY OF CARLSBAD
UNOCAL GAS STATION AND CAR WASH
I
RP 86-7(A)/CDP
9505 II
r AI IAW-tMtNl 5
r . ,* , BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO.: RP 86-07(A)/CDP 95-05
CASE NAME: UNOCAL Gas Station and Express Car Wash
APPLICANT: Union Oil Companv of California
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Replace existing work bavs and mini-mart with a new
express car wash at 880 Carlsbad Villaae Drive.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 29 throuah 32, Block 56, Town of Cartsbad, in the Countv
of San Dieao. State of California, accordincr to the mao thereof No. 775 filed in the
Office of the Countv Recorder of San Oieuo Countv February 15, 1985.
APN: 203-354- 16 Acres 0.32 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 0
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: Villaae
Density Allowed: N/A Density Proposed: N/A
Existing Zoning: V-R Proposed Zoning: V-R
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
Zoning Land Use
Site V-R Commercial Buildina, Retail/Service (Gas Station/Car
Wash)
North ,V-R Office Building
South V-R Commercial Building, Church
East V-R
West V-R
Commercial Buildina. Retail/Service (Gas Station/Mini-Mart)
Commercial Building. Bank
PUBLIC FAClUTlES
School District Carlsbad Water District Carlsbad Sewer District Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) 3
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated Mav 13. 1986
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
I A?omms S:A7EVEhT :F :ISC:OSURE OF CEFrrAlN @NNE~lP 1mRE-S @I AU AJ’PUCATQNS wwcN unu sE$$,f
I ;,SC~~MaY ACfCN CN :hE P*m of mE Cm COI;N% OR ANY APmlmO WRO. COMMIS$~ 0~ cCM,,,nEE.
i
:Please Pmt)
The following information must be disclosed:
1. Applicant
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application. Charlotte Thatcher
3490 Sea Crest Drive
Union Oil Company of Californip
17700 Castleton Street, #SO0
City of Industry, CA 91748
mlsbad. CA 92008 Robert H. Sonneman
52 El Sereno Court San Francisco, CA 94127
2 owner
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Charlotte Thatcher Robert H. Sonneman
3490 Sea Crest Drive 52 El Sereno Court Carl'sbad, CA 92008. San Francisco, ca 94127
3. H any person identified pursuant to (1) of (2) abow b l cmporatbn or partnership, list the names MC addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the cofpomtion of owning any paftnershtp
interest in the partnership.
None
If any person identlfkd punuti to (1) or (2) above b 8 nonprof!t orgrniratlon .or 8 trust, list t& names ant
addresses of any pen~rr serving as offbr or director of th@ non-profit organization 01 as trustee or beneficiq
of the trust
2075 Las Palmas Otivo l Carlsb8d. California 9200946SS l (619) 438-l 161
‘5
. i, ’
Lffc/osurs sfetemef?t .
ON ,-
Page 2
Have you had more than $250 worth of buSh8SS tmnsect8d with 8ny memb8t of City stat9, Boards,
Commissions, Committees and Counci/ within #I8 past hWi~8 months?
Y8S - No I( If yes, p/88$8 indicate perSOt?
:
\ Person lc d&hod u: ‘hq IndMurl. Amr copubmhlp, jc-h vontm. aswcldm, ~wdub.~~wJMh~-pomon,~.~t
I
yndicdr, tile and ury 0th~ county. tltf and tout&y, cl&y munklpdRy, dlimtt+d or o&u polltkrl o4kdMh 01 ury 0Unt group or oetnbirution utjng m uf&*
(No-: Anacn addllkaful psges a¶ fleceaq.)
Signature of Owner/date
&f 7 I(/. l Cj/L’rt’v”mA A! 8’
Print of type name of owner
Signature ‘it applicant/date
.
PXJ., /h .~uLj<
Print or type name of applicant
I .wmoo1 12l91
..s s
j$3P
7 7 . ;. . . *l- fRUDUCTS CUMfdNY -
&
. . <A; -
July 1, 1996
City of Carlsbad
Housing & Redevelopment Department
Ms. Deborah K. Fountain
Senior Management Analysis
2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B
Carlsbad. CA 92008-2389
4TTACHMENT 7
P ‘- - . cb -’ : 0 I * v
RE: RP-86-7(A) / CDP 95-05 UNOCAL GAS STATION AND CAR WASH
Dear Debbie:
As you are aware, the Design Review Board held a public hearing on April 17, 1996, to evaluate the
demolition of the existing work bays and mini-mart at the existing UNOCAL station and the
construction of a new express car wash. Based upon the meeting, the Design Review Board continued
the public hearing to May 1, 1996. so City staff could address the proposed conditions of approval
recommended by UNOCAL, the Design Review Board, and the citizens of Carlsbad. For example,
UNOCAL recommended that an Acoustical Study be completed prior to the issuance of building
permits to address any potential noise issues. However, after giving the planning process some
thought, I gave you a call and recommended that the public hearing be continued to July 17. 1996.
As you realize. I requested the continuance so UNOCAL could complete the various studies and
recommend the appropriate conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures to the Design Review
Board and citizens as part of the public hearing process as opposed to prior to the issuance of building
permits. On the behalf of UNOCAL, it’s very important that we facilitate the City and our neighbors
since we have been a member of your business community for many years. Based upon our meeting of
May 2, 1996, to confn-m the outstanding issues and conditions of approval associated with the proposed
project, please note that the following summarizes my understanding of the issues and UNOCAL’s
recommendations for project approval.
ISSUE - FLOODING
At the Design Review Board meeting the property owner who is located behind the existing service
station was concerned about the flow of water on to her existing parking lot. Currently, when the gas
station is washed down, the water runs on to her parking lot. Based uponthe potential flooding issue, 1
555 A-t:~n alvd . Cos:a Mesa. Callfor-:a 92526
Matltng Address 3 0 aox 25376 Santa Ana. Ca;.‘ornta 92799-5376
Faz 1713i 426-6051
2 ‘.“):S’ comoi-.
I I . I ---- -n-- ----It---?
u rJ mu5 3NIOW P Y. - \
I
--I I
I I
I
@
z ti
ii
3
I E 3 -t . ‘-
.j$
A requested Holmes a’ -%rver to prepare a Grading/ Drainage F to mitigate any potential flooding at
the site. Based upon the plan, the proposed project will decrease the impact of water onto adjacent
properties. Per the enclosed plan, there will be a masonry wall and/or concrete curb running the entire
length of the property and the site will be graded so water flows to the south. Furthermore, storm water
and hose down water will be collected before it leaves the site by V-gutters and trench drains and
conveyed underground to the City’s storm drainage system. The new facility will also meet NPDES
requirements. Storm and hose down water will pass through an oil-water separator before entering the
storm water drainage system which will help improve the quality of the storm water entering the ocean.
UNOCAL RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the Grading and Drainage Plan UNOCAL would recommend that the City condition the
project so the City has to approve the Grading/ Drainage Plan prior to the issuance of the grading
permits to mitigate the flooding of the adjacent properties.
ISSUE - PARKING
Per the proposed parking plan, three on-site parking spaces will be provided at the site. However, the
Design Review Board had reservations with only three parking spaces since three UNOCAL employees
will be on site between 6:00 a.m. and 890 p.m. To address the City’s concerns UNOCAL has
evaluated the issue and is willing to provide an additional three off-site parking spaces.
UNOCAL RECOMMENDATION
I would like to recommend that the City condition UNOCAL to enter into a Shared Parking Agreement
prior to the issuance of building permits. The Parking Agreement would require an additional three
parking spaces off-site. The three off-site parking spaces would be for our employees and the three on-
site parking spaces should be reserved for customer parking only. Furthermore, the off-site parking
spaces will to be in close proximity to the project site.
ISSUE T UNLOADING OF FUEL
Recently, the City asked UNOCAL how the fuel trucks would enter and leave the project site. Based
upon the City’s request please note that I have enclosed the Fuel Delivery Plan and it meets the intent
of the standards established by the City.
UNOCAL RECOMMENDATION
UNOCAL would like to recommend that the City condition the project so the unloading of fuel can
only take place between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
ISSUE - ON-SITE CIRCULATION PLAN
As you are aware, the Design Review Board requested an On-Site Circulation Plan to address the flow
of traffic on-site. Please note that I have enclosed an On-Site Circulation Plan for your review. The
proposed circulation pattern consists of vehicles entering the site via the easternmost driveway on
Carlsbad Village Drive (a one-way entrance) or the Harding Street driveway, fueling underneath the
canopy, and either exiting via the southwest driveway on Carlsbad Village Drive (a one-way exit) or
proceeding to the car wash entrance. One-way circulation (from northeast to southwest) will be
permitted through the fueling area. The one-way driveways will be marked with “entrance-only” and
“exit-only” signage. Vehicles leaving the car wash will use the Harding Street driveway to exit the site.
I
I I
I I
I I
1 I
I
I I
@a z B
1’ f 1 3 E -: t
NO SCAU
Ll.l
>
a
n
u.l
(3
a
A
A
w
0
a
m
co
J
a
a
0
VICINITY MAP HARDING STREET
-I
I ..-.-.........--...-.~...-~-~~~..-~----~--..-...- .i -.-Ta.
5 s
2 v
-
- - 1
J 0 -oNE-wAt- now I 0
ON-SITE CIRCULATION PLAN
8
3
0
’ I. ..I
The car wash attend)‘- lt the exit will direct vehicles out onto )’ - ” mg Street. With clearly marked
pavement delineation and directional signs, the driveways will not pose traffic safety or congestion
problems.
UNOCAL RECOMMENDATION
The City should condition the project so the On-Site Circulation Plan has to be implemented by
UNOCAL.
ISSUE - ON-SITE PUBLIC TELEPHONE
As you real& UNOCAL supported the recommendation of the Design Review Board in reference to a
public telephone near the cashiers booth. Furthermore, I recommend that the public telephone be for
out call service only.
UNOCAL RECOMMENDATION
Condition the applicant to provide a public telephone on-site with out call service only.
ISSUE - TIME LIMIT ON THE MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT/ CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT
At the April 17, 1996, Design Review Board meeting the board asked if the applicant would support a
condition which only granted approval of the Major Redevelopment Permit/ Conditional Use Permit for
a period of five (5) years. At the meeting I indicated that UNOCAL had reservations with the condition
because of the substantial investment we were making in the community. As you are aware, the City
currently has the discretion to revoke the permits after a public hearing if it is found that the use has a
substantial detrimental effect on the surrounding land uses and the public’s health and welfare, or the
conditions imposed upon the project.
UNOCAL RECOMMENDATION
At this time, UNGCAL would like to recommend that the City draft a condition of approval which
grants approval of the Major Redevelopment Permit/ Conditional Use Permit for a period of ten (I 0)
years. Funhermore, the permits may be extended for a period of ten (IO) years upon written
application of the applicant made no less than 90 days prior to the expiration date. However, the
Planning Commission may not grant such extension, unless it finds that there are no substantial
negative effects on surrounding land uses or the public’s health and welfare.
ISSUE - NOISE ANALYSIS
As you are aware, a majority of the residents at the April 17, 1996, meeting expressed concern with the
potential noise associated with the project. At the meeting I indicated that UNOCAL would undertake
a Noise Analysis for the proposed car wash. Please note that I have enclosed a copy of the Noise
Analysis Report prepared by Mestre Greve Associates.
UNOCAL RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the noise study I would like to recommend the following as conditions of approval.
I) 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 l/4’* laminated glass.
3) Car wash operatic- hall be limited to the hours between 70 - m. and 8:00 p.m.
4) The height of the door at the exit end of the tunnel shall be reduced to IO feet.
5) A masonry wall 6.0 feet high shall extend 45 feet beyond the entrance end of the tunnel.
6) A masonry wall 6.0 feet high shall extend 20’ beyond the exit end of the tunnel.
7) Modify Landscape Plan so the 6 foot masonry walls are landscaped with bougainvillea. Both the
north and south elevations of the walls shall be landscaped.
8) In addition to the above conditions of approval, the City has recommended that the proposed coin
operated vaccum be prohibited at the site. UNOCAL supports the staff recommendation.
Based upon the City’s Review of the studies and the recommended conditions of approval it is my
understanding per our recent meeting that we have resolved all of the potential issues. However, if you
have any questions please give me a call prior to the Design Review Board meeting of July 17. 1996.
Furthermore, as I have indicated to date, I would like the City to schedule a meeting with the citizens
who attended the Design Review Board meeting so I can present our recommendations for each of their
concerns. Hopefully you can schedule the meeting the week of July 1 or July 8, 1996. Again, I would
like to thank you and the Design Review Board for giving UNOCAL the opportunity to address and
resolve the issues early in the planning process.
Sincerely,
zl!lz~~
Project Manager
cc: Mr. Bill Compas, Design Review Board
Ms. Sarah Marquez, Design Review Board
Ms. Peggy Savary, Design Review Board
Mr. Nick Vessey, Design Review Board
Ms. Kim Welshons, Design Review Board
Mr. Evan Becker, Housing & Redevelopment Director
Mr. Clyde E. Wickham, Associate Engineer
Mr. Cat-y Brockman, KHR Associates
Mr. Allan Cornia, Holmes & Narver
Mr. Fred Greve, Mestre Greve Associates
Mr. Philip Dedge. UNOCAL
Mr. Ron Jones, UNOCAL
Mr. Eric Munoz, Associate Planner
n
Avodwo~ rpnpo>d gL : VINM,,lW, ‘OrOSlUV-
0 & 3w7U aV9slMVnS JL)b
2 --
. : ..-.
---- . . _ . _
,R
L
i
L
1
Y
.
.
--_- -- __-~ Auodwo3 S~3”pOJ,j gL : , i
>’ . ‘AL .-. . _._
,
r i ---~_-.-
- - - - -- - - i,‘. .;- 2 ;i 7’ ,’ ‘I B t 2 d ;
0- 2, w .,
I -.:
1 #T- $1
. ; :i . 1 j I j j: f it
.; ! .t , ‘S.:. $9 -*
1 !’ j
i j j I, ii ; j: i! ,\ ;‘: i i 2, ’ ’ i. ,; y ‘i; ;: ! j, s,
~-iZ J : > i i ja ;i . 1. i:i rl rg : ;$ i; ! 5 ii
!f ’ 4 !I p 11 1 ‘IS x* / ;;;;;e$r f::;’ ;, :;t$ ‘I! $ ;: P ;“+: .*;g;.;? +,;i,:5) g , .^-.?r(*r?c ! I-- I ;li c’.sra: i”. :.r:..
Y i i 'M ,I.* ., -..
g ;f ;%-
1 I
-._I
; ;: i --.' I $I 11;; -Ii:;
.I, -
1 G . . .
HI
g,.Q 3 i!
,;;.;;$i~ $1, I
:i:! :
1-i ; 4;; j f J 1 j .-..j . .::* ! Ii 3 Q : ‘<
-I
Wd 3ar,SCh’7:
C9iX ‘S’S WONT!
I /
6 I ’
l33YLS ONlOW I II j
i/ I
i
3NIOllnB WNW A31015 I
h
t
Auodwo3 SlDnpoJd 9L
_ ?lvBONn _ “.’
. .
.
,.J.&: I ! , .,
. E--j j - ---~-T-y---~ 0, - : I;, .- -,’ , ,‘( 4 ; 51 b -) -, w =,I. 2- i. ‘$ I. 1 I 2
l . .% _ I?’
5. ._.~
5
4!J
;-- ’
I 4 i . : . i. I . ::e.:. e._,. i” i’
t
3 4b 4 ?1. . . . . .;.-. . ” : I
P f
.: >
-- : -2, I I’ :
Noise Analysis for Unocal Car Wash #7263
(at Carlsbad Village Drive and Harding Street) City of Carlsbad
Report M-80-B June 3,1996
Prepared For: UNOCAL CORPORATION 555 Anton Boulevard Costa Mesa, CA 92626
PrepadBy:
Fred Grew, P.E. Mike Hohilz MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES 280 Newport Center Drive, Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone (7 14) 760-089 1 FAX (7 14) 760-1928
.
i ---s --- v-e-- ---(---------- --
3NlClWH
0
0 L J
c I . I
: - a E I l
i:!.A.m : . . . ; d I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A P
0
5
r I : 1 ~ ,
14
I.
MCStn UxvC Assaata RepottM-80-B Pagelof6
Summary Noise Analysis for Unocal Car Wash #7263 (at Carlsbad Village Drive and Harding Street) City of Carlsbad
INTRODUCTION
The proposal Unocal Car Wash #7263 is to be located at the site of the existing Unocal gas station on the west cornef of the intersection of Carl&ad Village Drive and Harding Stmet, in the City of Carl&ad. This report will address the potential noise impacts due to the proposed Unocal Car Wash on the adjacent land uses. Any significant noise impacts on the adjacent land uses due to the proposed project will be identitied. 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 or lower noise level) shall be used.
2) The skylights in the car wash tunnel will need to be at l&t l/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) tlmasonry wall 6.0 feet high shall extend 20’ beyond the exit end of the tunnel, as shown in Exhibit .
With these planned design mitigations in Blace, the noise levels at the adjacent land uses ‘will he substantially reduced. The results of the analysis 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 Mow the 55 LEQ(H) interior noise guideline. Therefore, all adjacent offices will meet the City of Cat-Mad 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 wiJl act as a substantial barrier The shielding provided by the car wash building, the 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.
-.
MCSUC UX’CVC Associates RcportU96-80-B Page2of6
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 Carl&ad 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 arc 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 qmdfied, 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 qually 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 @A) 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-weighted 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 NOlSE 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 strictly apply to this type of noise source. However, the City does have indoor noise guidelines for general off&s. Therefore, in this report we will demonstrate compliance of the project with the City of Carl&ad 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. XXQO (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. (Jlre City’s interior noise standatd for residential land uses is 45 CNEL.)
I
, Exhibit 1 - Vicinity Map
~-IRE GREW2 ASSOCIATES w
i WV--- -- - -e-e- ---(----------
133tllS f)NlOWH
-.
I I
I I
1
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I ; I )
I I I
4.. @ ? , I .
: -
‘t‘ ?---- z * y--Y i
: - i. ; :
; . . . . . . .f . .I.. : f-.....'; I . . . . . . '. -mm -w-~-fr--..---q--y ,---.e--- . . ‘,.__ :
1.:
i: . i ’ ! .,-I! . “---: p-4
, \ _I -. : : i : I
.
SOUND L&WUS AND LOUDNESS OF IUUSTRATIVB NOISBS W INDOOR AND OUTDtWI RNVlRONJ@VTS
(A-Scab W&&d Sound L~rrlr)
COMMUNITY BONE OR MDUt3RY
Ri*aal)Nachk(llO) 110dB(A)I6lbarlm
hgcTdamulgIcoRQO) sodBwtM*M
40 BidcanT tara~iltbbeaAmt4casord~ Y)dB(AlUY~Ld
msrAuDlBLR YNN-Llen\pDd)
M&FAwxD 10 OF-
. . _ . souRcEz&lcdm¶dbopNdvilkC~aldRR*Bdrd.~~ ’ = .
h4ESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES c Exhibit 3 Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels I
-..
‘.‘C.?Ub VA bTC : .wlillcs Reports80-B Page3of6
4.0 AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENT LEVELS
Ambient noise levels were measured at thme 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 1090 am. and 190 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 & Kjaz Type 4230 sound level calibrator, with calibration traceable to the National Bureau of Standards. Noise measurements were made for two H-minute periods at each site. The noise measurement results are presented in Table 2.
Table 2 AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS (DBA)
Site Leq lmin
Bank 61.8 75.6 50.8 Bank 62.9. 81.6 51.7
Offices (2nd floor) 61.6 73.9 54.4
Offices(2ndfloor) 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 txaffic 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 SerYiCe 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 Prom-Vest, Inc. Noise measurements were conducted by Mestre Grtve Associates of the same model of dryer/blower as the one planned for the proposed 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 dryer/blower represents the largest noise source for the car wash tunnel area. Other associated noises from the car wash tunnel are insignificant compared to the dryer
. ..WUV urrTb.-LaicS Report#%-&B Page4of6
Noise levels for the drycr/hlower are listed below in Table 3. It should be e hasized that the noise levels in Table 3 represent source noise levels. In the following section, these noise evels will be projected to the “p distances of the adjacent land uses, and will inclu& adjustments for noise bmiers.
Table 3 TYPICAL CAR WASH EQUIPMENT SOURCE NOISE LEVELS (DBA)
source Distance (fett) Unmitiga.ted Level
rhyemower 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 Ix located along the northwest property line. The proposed car wash will be partially enclosed
by the 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 the 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 dryerfblower rum continuously. Actualiy, even during the busiest times, the clryerfblower cycles on and ofl. TAis cycling results in a lower LEQ(H) than that which is projected.
It was assumed that the oftsces with operable windows need to meet the 55 LEQ(H) standurd with windows open, and ofices with fured windows need to meet the 55 L.EQ(H) standard with windows closed.
At the bank and omes, tr&c noise was added to the car wash noise, so that the total indoor noise leveik could be diavmined.
Design mitigation measures already planned for the project are shown in Exhibit 4 and are presented below:
- c-e-- --,----------
3NlClWH
\ >; I . . . . ; . . . . . i . ,
.-.....
3
.
r-
I I --
n. 0
Y 62 0
k3
4
f
2
%
d
4
I I
I 1
I I
1 ,
I I
I I
I I
I ,
I
I I
1 I
3 i I a C 0 ; s : I f -
r 16
e- Report #96-8&B
Page5of6
DESIGN MITIGATION MEASURES
1) Th.;lW$td.ear Air Dryer (with silencer) by Proto-Vest (or a dryer with qual or lowa noise level) .
2) The skylights in the car wash tunnel will need to be at least l/4** laminated glass.
3) The height of the door at the exit end of the tunnel shall he 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 wdrst case noise levels at the adjacent land uses (with the planned design mitigation) arc listed in Table 4.
Table 4 CAR WASH NOISE LEVELS AT ADJACENT LAND USES WITH DESIGN MITIGATION MEASURES
Location Sollrce Noise Level (LEQ)
Bank Blower/dryer (entmncc end) Tra&c Total Exterior
50.7 60.4 60.8
Building Noise Reduction 25.0 Interior Noise Level 35.8
Office Building with fixed windows Blowe&iryer (exit end) 65.2 T&c 61.5 Total Exterior 66.7
Building Noise Reduction 25.0 Interior Noise Level 41.7
Office Building with operable windows Bl~werkirycr (exit end) .65.2 Traffic 61.5 Total Exterior 66.7
Building Noise Reduction . 12.0 Interior Noise Level 54.7
PROOF OF PUB, <ATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego.
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above-
entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of
North County Times
formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudged newspapers of general circulation by the
Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of
California, under the dates of June 30, 1989
‘(Blade-Citizen) and June 21, 1974 (Times-
Advocate) case number 171349 (Blade-Citizen)
and case number 172171 (The Times-Advocate)
.for the cities of Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad,
Solana Beach and the North County Judicial
District; that the notice of which the annexed is a
printed copy (set in type not smaller than
nonpareil), has been published in each regular and
entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
September 7, 1996
1 certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at California, this 9th day
of September, 1996
/’ _ x2’
J--- -&c, ----+5--------------
1; Signature /-------
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
This spaa , for the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of
Notice of Hearing RP96-3/CDP 95-5 _______---__-------------- City of Carlsbad
___-------__--------------
NOTICEOFPUBLICnrfi
UNOCAL
Y.““y.yL “II a-y. 7 I,, ,n am5 Gnsul Dmbpnmt Permit (93-S) mallow the cultivnt hys,andtheurmmrtim ~- ~- --
-u: ofrlnewexpmmcarwubmpmpnybamdu88ocplrbd
r NOTlC6ISiiEi1FBYOM?~thdIbtHamiuga,d~10,-,,,cwmuuo. 0fthcciidcubbd ~bohold~pblickengulbecumcil~bea, 12ool3rlsbdvimiw,~~* <An-- -T.-a-.. n--L- .- . ~~d~* ‘ppmn’ of a hi+ Rsdcnlopmer permit (963 -~s~thedemoliiofsxirrnyvat
WhgeLhin.mdtmvepmicuLrt
Lotr29lbrouObj%incl~ilivcinBbdr%.TavllofCulrbdinIbcCityaf~Carmyof~DPlo. SuteofWif~~mthcmpmsrcofNo.n5,fikd~th016ceofmDCoumy~of~ Qicgo County. February 15.1895.
‘Ibowpmcms~mqolroa~pmponl~~invitcdmmm0dtbeplbk horing.CopiqofthruffrcponwillbclnifWeoo~~~~13.1996.Ifya
‘~~MYqUrmrmrrgrdial~laM.p*oe-Dcbb~Famuini.tbcHollling ad w apmmcnt at (619) 434-2935.
ABulmltodmviromDcwlrrvisvtm&tk~~.~~
ccBQ.4)~me--~ wiryha oftk city ofcdabad tk PlMning Diracmriuucd~NeOminDslmtio.brtbclubjaoalurvlZ.IP%.ThcDailpl
RevhBwdappwed(bcNfguiverkcLnw.rmAvgun7.1996.
HYoudmuagethe~nadwalqmlemPcrmit~a~ wtMceoftbeCarpl ~~Fumit~~punuy~iimimdmmising~tbacbaanimdbyyou I-UilC-duUtkPUb&b~iiUthiSUltiUWtiti~ dcevasdmlbccayofcrrlbracirycl~boffifsu~piorm.mcplblie~
I
APPLICANT: Joim MlnQhy fat UNOCAL
CIUUSBADUOWJNGANDREDEVELO~COMM~~~~ON I teoll487.25sqtfQtar7.1996
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
UNOCAL GAS STATION AND EXPRESS CAR WASH
RP 96-3/CDP 95-5
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 17, 1996 to consider approval of a Major Redevelopment Permit (96-3) and Coastal Development Permit (95-5) to allow the continuation of an existing Gas Station, the demolition of existing work bays, and the construction of a new express car wash on property located at 880 Carlsbad Village Drive, and more particularly described as:
Lots 29 through 32, inclusive, in Block 56, Town of Carlsbad, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to the map thereof No. 775, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, February 15, 1895.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after September 13, 1996. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Debbie Fountain in the Housing and Redevelopment Department at (619) 434-2935.
As a result of environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad, the Planning Director issued a Negative Declaration for the subject project on June 12, 1996. The Design Review Board approved the Negative Declaration on August 7, 1996.
If you challenge the Major Redevelopment Permit and/or issuance of the Coastal Development Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues raised by you or someone else at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad City Clerk's Office at, or prior to, the public hearing.
APPLICANT: John Murphy for UNOCAL PUBLISH: September 7, 1996
CARLSBAD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
r I 7
L-l IL-
GRAND AVENUE
I L I
t
OffICe
Bank L Arco Gas Station
I
CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE 4 L Project
Site
1
Church
M
Parking
N
W -f, E
v S
CITY OF CARLSBAD
u-
I
UNOCAL GAS STATION AND CAR WASH I RP 96-3/CDP 95-05
C&BELL FAMILY TRUST
PO BOX 1887
FALLBROOK CA 92088-1887
SWYS CORP
PO BOX 90789
SAN DIEGO CA 92 169-2789
SHEHAB EDMOND T TRUST 1989
632 1 ESPLANADE ST
PLAYA DEL REY CA 90293-7581
KINGSTON JOSEPHINE R
PO BOX 884
CARLSBAD CA 920 1 R-0884
JEANENE ENTERPRISES INC
2879 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-I 720
- BLACKSTONE LOIS N
2854 HOPE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1832
SHEHAB EDMOND T TRUST 1989
632 I ESPLANADE ST
PLAYA DEL REY CA 90293-7581
PGP CARLSBAD SENIORS LTD II
1 I20 SILVEIUDO ST
LA JOLLA CA 920374524
WILSON STUART C & MARILYN
1846 AVOCADO RD
OCEANSIDE CA 92054-6133
UNOCAL CORPORATION
ATTN LIZ.4 HESS
555 ANTON BLVD
COSTA MESA CA 92625
SHOO GEORGE k ADRIENNE REVOCABLE
2879 HOPE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-l 833
CERDA DANIEL J & ERNESTINE C
1743 LOTUS AVE
EL CENTRO CA 92243-9505
SANDY JOSEPH P & BETTY J
2892 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1719
JEANENE ENTERPRISES INC
2879 JEFFERSON ST
UNIT #J
CARLSBAD CA 92008-1720
THAT,&ER CHARLOTTE L REVOC - GRANTJOHNH&MARYCTRS
’ 3490 SEACREST DR 2945 HARDING ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2040 UNlT#lll . CARLSBAD CA 92008-1818
NORMAN PHYLLIS E - TR BESAW JAMES A&LANA D
PO BOX 1395 PO BOX 3928
CARLSBAD CA 92018-I 395 DANA POINT CA 92629-8928
LARSEN GORDON A
PO BOX 45000
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94 145-0002
DAVIES LLOYD A & RAE A
1067 SANDALWOOD DR
EL CENTRO CA 92243-3825
PEARSON TRUST Q
1296 RUE SAINT MARTIN
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-5286
RAY GENE S & MARGARET A
2959 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2333
CAKLSBAD GRAND GENERAL PRTNRSl III’
PO E3OX 8193
RANCIIO SANTA FE CA 92067
PACKARD BUILDING PARTNERSHIP
725 GRAM> AVE
CAKLSBAD CA 92008-2331
HOME SAVINGS & LOAN ASSN KFC NATIONAL MANAGEMENT CO
4900 RIVERGRADE RD #550 PO BOX 35910
IRWINDALE CA 9 1706- 1404 LOUISVILLE KY 40232-5910
VITALLE FRANK A TR BARKER MARTHA E
3037 JEFFERSON ST 2435 MARK CIR
CARLSBN) CA 92008-2309 CARLSBAD CA 92008-2816
PARKER FRED J 62 ANNE G TRS
14088 RUE MONACO
DEL MAR CA 920 14
PRlEl-I’0 JOHN G L DONNA M
3071 JE:FFERSON ST
CAKLS13AD CA 92008-2309
MCCARTIIY LLOYD M tk BARBARA 11 TRS ATKIN FAMILY TRIJSI
549 S 3RD AVE 3565 TRII’STI; DR
IA PUENTli CA 91746-2849 CAKLSIMD CA 92008-2840
COl.I’S ROlcxT .I I~ARKER MAK’I’liA 11
3 I I I JEFI~I’RSON ST 2435 MARK CIR
CARLSBAI) CA 92008-2404 CAKLSBAD CA Y2008-2816
SCANLON FAMILY TRUST
7306 BORLA PL
CARLSBAD CA 92009-7802
CROWLEY MILDRED R
2928 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2332
RANCH0 VISTA NATIONAL BANK
1381 E VISTA WAY
VISTA CA 92084
MARVINKIMW
PO BOX 4343
PALM DESERT CA 92261-4343
1SRAWI BROTHERS
425 N ARDEN BLVD
LOS ANGELES CA 90004-3023
E II S INVESTMENTS CO
5553 TRINITY WAY
SAN DIEGO CA 92 120
WILLIAMS MARION S
2871 COTTINGHAM ST
OCEANSIDE CA 92054-3734
MELENDEZ FEDERICO C
309 1 l/2 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2309
MELENDE% FEDERICO C
3091 JEFFERSON ST
CARISI3AD CA 92008-2309
CARISBAD COMMTJNITY CHURCH
3 175 1 IARDlNG ST
CARl.SlMD CA 92008-2402
JOHN&N BARBARA ANNE
.897 OAK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2418
GOOD SHEPHERD ASSEMBLY OFGGD
PO BOX 1035
CARLSBAD CA 92018-1035
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC AGENCY
LOPEZ BRAULIO & RACHEL G
931 OAK AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2419
P G P CARLSBAD SENIORS LTD
1120 SILVERADO ST
LA JOLLA CA 920374524
.- MORRIS MAC G II t VENABLE JANET
3640 FELIZ CREEK RD
HOPLAND CA 95449-9701
MCSHERRY HAROLD V 62 DARCY W GASTELUM FAMILY TRUST 11-16-94
3995 ALDER AVE 323 HILL DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-3602 VISTA CA 92083-62 11
BARKERMARTHAE
2435 MARK CIR
CARLSBAD CA 92008-28 16
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC AGENCY
CARLSBAD COMMUNIT Y CHURCH
3175 HARDINGST
CARLSBAD CA 92008-2402
FTZPATRICK FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST
991 LOMAS SANTA FE DR
UNIT #C432
SOLANA BEACH CA 92075-2 125
FOODMAKER INC <LF> SAN DIEGG TRUS CARROLL G STANLEY & E GLORIA SOT0 VERA A
17207 N PERIMETER DR 302 E MANCHESTER BLVD PO BOX 299
SCGTTSDALE AZ 85255-5401 INGLEWGGD CA 90301-1815 OCEANSJDE CA 92049-0299
THATCHER CIIARLOTTE I, REVGC
PO BOX 285
HOUSTON TX 7700 1
MOTEL 6 OPERATING L P
1465 1 DALLAS PKY
DALLAS TX 75240-7476
LOSA GREGORY W
PO BOX 96
CARLSBAD CA 92018-0096
BANCHE MCIIOLAS C & JEAN A
3464 RIDGECREST DR
CARLSIJAJ) CA 92008-2032
JOILNSON MARY ANN
988 GRANJ) AVE
CARLSlml~ CA 02008- I8 I 1
THATCHER CHARLOTTE L REVOC
PO BOX 285
HOUSTON TX 7700 1
BOYADJIAN SETA
8690 ROBINHOOD LN
LA JOLLA CA 92037-2 134
THOMPSON WILLIAM E & KAY B
PO BOX 1601
OXNARJ) CA 93032-I 60 1
METROS DGRGTHY
9 19 N PECK AVE
MAN1 JATTAN BCI i CA 90266-6 I 32
DGNOVAN WILI JAM
972 GRAND AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008-18 I 1
MOTEL 6 OPERATING L P
750 TERRADG PLZ
UNIT#231
COVINA CA 9 1723-34 19
BOYADJIAN SETA AKA MARENGG SETA
8690 ROBINI IGGD LN
LA JOLLA CA 92037-2 134
BAKER NEAL T B CAROL R
1875 BUSINESS CENTER DR
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92408
MIJ,LS JACK B
1000 GRAND AVE
CARLSI MD CA 9200% 18 13
DI:LFRANClA LINDA
2886 J JOPI’ AVE
CARI,SI %Al> CA 92008-I 832
-
August 12, 1996
TO: CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
FROM: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice UNOCAL GAS STATION AND
CAR WASH - RP96-03/CDP 9505 for a public hearing before the Housing and
Redevelopment Commission.
Please notice the item for a special Housing and Redevelopment Commission meeting
on September 10.1996.
Thank you.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
UNOCAL GAS STATION AND EXPRESS CAR WASH
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of
Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive,
Carlsbad, California at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 10, 1996 to consider approval of a
Major Redevelopment Permit (96-03) and Coastal Development Permit (95-05) to allow the
continuation of an existing Gas Station and the demolition of existing work bays at, and the
construction of a new express car wash at, property located at 880 Carlsbad Village Drive, more
particularly described as:
Lots 29 through 32, inclusive, in Block 56, Town of Carlsbad, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California, according to the map thereof No. 775, filed in the Office of the County Recorder
of San Diego County, February 15, 1895.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after September 6, 1996. If you
have any questions, please contact Debbie Fountain in the Housing and Redevelopment
Department at (619) 434-2935.
As a result of environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad, the Planning Director issued a
Negative Declaration for the subject project on June 12, 1996. The Design Review Board
approved the Negative Declaration on August 7, 1996.
If you challenge the Major Redevelopment Permit or issuance of the Coastal Development Permit
in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at
or prior to the public hearing.
Case File: RP 96-03KDP 95-05
Case Name: Unocal Gas Station and Car Wash
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
(See Other Side for Map)