The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1996-02-07; Planning Commission; ; CUP 94-01A - Shell Oil• The ffiy of l:arl!hl Planning Department • ~¢- A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No.@ Application complete date: December 11, 1995 P.C. AGENDA OF: February 7, 1996 Project Planner: Teresa Woods Project Engineer: Ken Quon SUBJECT: CUP 94-0l(A) -SHELL OIL -Request for an amendment of a Conditional Use Permit to modify one condition to extend the time by which building permits must be issued. This would allow the previously approved project to develop as originally approved including: (1) the demolition of existing fuel pumps and canopy on Pio Pico Drive; (2) the remodel of the existing gas station service bays as a new combination convenience market and self service car wash; and (3) a freeway oriented service sign to 45 feet above the freeway, at the southwest corner of Carlsbad Village Drive and Pio Pico Drive, in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3894, APPROVING an amendment to Conditional Use Permit CUP 94-01 (CUP 94-0l(A)), based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. INTRODUCTION The proposed amendment to CUP 94-01 is a request to modify Condition #9 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3718, which states that the approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued within one year from the date of project approval. Since the applicant made a request for this CUP amendment within required time frames (letter dated October 20, 1995). The CUP can be considered as valid during the Planning Commission consideration of this amendment request. No other modifications to CUP 94-01 have been requested by the applicant. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The Carlsbad Shell project (CUP 94-01) was approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 3718 on November 2, 1994. The earlier CUP for this project approved several modifications to the existing service station. The modifications included demolishing the existing fuel pumps/canopy adjacent to Pio Pico Drive and removing the existing service bays and installing a co~bination self-service car wash/convenience market. Also approved was a 45-foot high freeway service facility sign and an administrative variance to permit the reduction in standards of landscape strips adjacent to Carlsbad Village Drive and Pio Pico Drive. A full project description and analysis is contained in the attached November 2, 1994 staff report; the CUP itself has a term of five years before it must be renewed/extended, expiring November 2, 1999. CUP 94-0l(A) -SHELL 4l February 7, 1996 Page 2 • Shortly after this CUP was approved, the applicant began working to receive building permit approvals on the project. However, since financing for the project's construction and development could not be secured, the applicant did not pursue further the building permit approvals. The applicant has stated that financing should be available this year for the Carlsbad Shell remodel. The project is subject to the following analysis and/or regulations: A. Is the proposed, modified condition consistent and compatible with the original approval of CUP 94-01? B. Growth Management Ordinance (Local Facilities Management Zone 1 ). IV. ANALYSIS A. Project Conditions The proposed modified condition is Condition No. 9 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3718. It provides an additional one year for the applicant to obtain a building permit otherwise the CUP is null and void. This amendment would extend that deadline for building permit issuance from November 2, 1995 to November 2, 1996. This additional time will not create any new impacts to the area or project site, and no new project modifications, revisions or intensifications are proposed. B. Growth Management The proposed CUP amendment request does not create any additional impacts to facilities and services beyond those already analyzed with the original project approval. Therefore, the previous growth management assessment of this project, as contained in the November 2, 1994 staff report (and corresponding attachments), is still valid. No adverse impacts to the adequacy or availability of public facilities and/or services will be created by the approval of this amendment request and the development of the proposed project. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The requested CUP amendment will not create any additional environmental impacts beyond those assessed with the earlier project approval. No new situations exist in the area which would be adversely impacted by the development of the project beyond those impacts associated with project as originally approved by the Planning Commission in November 1994. Therefore, the existing and approved environmental review associated with this project is still valid for the purpose of considering this amendment request. A Negative Declaration with supporting analysis and documentation was prepared for the earlier CUP approval and was issued on September 2, 1994. For this amendment request a Notice of Prior Compliance was prepared and issued on December 15, 1995. The environmental impact analysis prepared for CUP 94-0l(A) incorporates the earlier review for CUP 94-01 and supplements it with a discussion of the City's General Plan Update Master BIR CUP 94-0l(A) -SHELL. February 7, 1996 Page 3 • (MEIR). The MEIR involved a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regards to subsequent projects Citywide and air quality and circulation impacts. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3894 2. Location Map 3. Notice of Prior Compliance published on December 15, 1995 4. Environmental Impact Assessment Part II 5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3717 6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3718 7. Disclosure Statement 8. Staff Report dated November 2, 1994 (with attachments) 9. Excerpt from Planning Commission Minutes dated November 2, 1994 10. Reduced Exhibits per original approval of November 2, 1994. TW:kr ' • • ~l'l'tt1 Ill J LAGllfA DR SHELL OIL COMPANY CUP 94-01 (A) • • City of Carlsbad M RGI;;;;• •i· I •24·6• ;; ; ,t4 ,Ii PUBLIC NOTICE OF PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE Please Take Notice: The Planning Department has determined that the environmental effects of the project described below have already been considered in conjunction with previously certified environmental documents and, therefore, no additional environmental review will be required and a notice of determination will be filed. Project Title: SHELL OIL COMPANY Project Location: Southwest comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and Pio Pico Drive, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. Project Description: Request for an amendment of a conditional use permit to modify one condition to extend the time by which building permits must be issued. The original project is for the addition of a 738 square foot automotive self-service car wash, removal of the bays and the remodel of the existing building to include a convenience store with new exterior and interior features. Justification for this determination is on file in the Planning Department, Community Development, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within ten {1 O) days of date of publication. DATED: CASE NO: CASE NAME: PUBLISH DATE: TW:kr DECEMBER 15, 1995 CUP 94-01 (A) SHELL OIL DECEMBER 15, 1995 ~(2~ MICHAELJ.HOlLLER Planning Director 2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM -PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Shell Oil Company 2. APPLICANT: Tait and Associates/Shell Oil Company CASE NO. CUP 94-0HA) DATE: December 11, 1995 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: Tait and Associates: 3665 Ruffin Road, Suite 230, San Diego, CA 92123, (619) 278-1161; Shell Oil Company: 511 North Brookhurst, Anaheim. CA 92803, (714) 520-3376 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: ~Nl.:::o:..!..ve::::.:m~be=r"""'"l~3~1"""'99::..:5~------------ 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for an amendment of a conditional use permit to modify one condition to extend the time by which building permits must be issued. The original project is for the addition of a 738 square foot automatic self-service car wash, removal of the existing service bays and the remodel of the existing building to include a convenience store with new exterior and interior finishes. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact", or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. _ Land Use and Planning _x_ Transportation/Circulation Public Services _ Population and Housing _ Biological Resources _ Utilities and Service Systems _ Geological Problems _ Energy and Mineral Resources Aesthetics Water Hazards Cultural Resources _x_ Air Quality Noise Recreation _ Mandatory Findings of Significance I Rev. 3/28/95 • • DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 0 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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. D 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 MEIR/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier MEIR /NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance_ has been prepared. Ix] Planner Signature Date Planning Director Signature Date 2 Rev. 3/28/95 • • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A. "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. • "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. • "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. • "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. • Based on an "BIA-Part 11'1, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. • A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 3 Rev. 3/28/95 • • • If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an ElR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. • An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier ElR 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. 4 Rev. 3/28/95 • Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): #1:pg. 7) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#1:pg. 7) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (#1:pg. 7) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or fannlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (#1:pg. 7) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (#1:pg. 8) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (#1 :pg. 8) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (#1:pg. 8) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (#1:pg. 8) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (#1:pg. 6) b) Seismic ground shaking? (#1:pg. 6) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#1:pg. 6) 5 Potentially Significant Impact • Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact ..x.. ..x.. _x_ ..x.. ..x.. ..x.. X ..x.. _x_ _x_ Rev. 3/28/95 • • Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#1:pg. 6) ..x. e) Landslides or mudflows? (#1:pg. 6) ..x f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#1:pg. 6) _x_ g) Subsidence of the land? (#1 :pg. 6) _x_ h) Expansive soils? (#1:pg. 6) ..x i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#1:pg. 6) ..x N. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#1:pg. 6) _x_ b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (#1:pg. 6) ..x c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (#1:pg. 6) _x_ d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (#1:pg. 6) ..x. e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (#1 :pg. 6) _x_ f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or e:x,cavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (#1:pg. 6) ..x. g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (#1:pg. 6) ..x. h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#1:pg. 6) ..x 6 Rev. 3/28/95 • I~es (and Supporting Information Sources): i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (#1:pg. 6) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (#1: pg. 6; #2: pg 5.3-4) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#1: pg. 6; #2: pg 5.3-4) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (#1: pg. 6; #2: pg 5.3-4) d) Create objectionable odors? (#1: pg. 6; #2: pg 5.3- 4) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#1: pg. 8) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#1: pgs 6-8) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (#1: pg. 8; See Discussion) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#1: pg. 8; See Discussion) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (#1: pg. 8; #2: pg. 5.7-6) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#1: pg. 7) 7 Potentially Significant Impact • Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact Rev. 3/28/95 No Impact • Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#1: pg. 8) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (#1: pg. 7) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#1: pg. 7) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#1: pg. 7) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (#1: pg. 7) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#1: pg. 7) VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (#1: pgs. 6-7) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (#1: pgs. 6-7) 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? (#1: pgs. 6-7) IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation? (#1: pgs. 7-8) 8 Potentially Significant Impact • Potentially Significant Unless ~ Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact Rev. 3/28/95 • ls.mes (and Supporting Information Sources): b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#1: pgs. 7-8) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? (#1: pgs. 7-8) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (#1: pgs. 7-8) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (#1: pgs. 7-8) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#1: pg. 7) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#1: pg. 7) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or. result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (#1: pgs. 7-8) b) Police protection? (#1: pgs. 7-8) c) Schools? (#1: pgs. 7-8) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (#1: pgs. 7-8) e) Other governmental services? (#1: pgs. 7-8) XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (#1: pgs. 6-8) b) Communications systems? (#1: pgs. 6-8) 9. Potentially Significant Impact • Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated ~Than Significant Impact Rev. 3/28/95 No Impact _x_ _x_ X _x_ _x_ _x_ • Is.sues (and Supporting Information Sources): c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (#1: pgs. 6-8) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#1: pgs. 6-8) e) Storm water drainage? (#1: pgs. 6-8) t) Solid waste disposal? (#1: pgs. 6-8) g) Local or regional water supplies? (#1: pgs. 6-8) XIlI. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (#1: pg. 8) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (#1: pg. 8) c) Create light or glare? (#1: pg. 7) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#1: pgs. 6-7) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#1: pg. 6-7) c) Affect historical resources? (#1: pg. 6-7) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#1: pg. 6-7) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (#1: pg. 6-7) XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#1: pg. 8) 10 Potentially Significant Impact • Potentially Significant Unless ~ Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact Rev. 3/28/95 No Impact X .x. ..x. • Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#1: pg. 8) XVI. MANDATORY FJNDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wild life species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIBR ANALYSES. Potentially Significant Impact • Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. 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 11 Rev. 3/28/95 No Impact • • project. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The proposed request is for an amendment of a Conditional Use Permit to modify one condition to extend the time by which building permits must be issued. The original project was a remodel of an existing auto repair service station and the addition of a 738 square foot automatic self-service car wash. The remodel would include the conversion of existing service repair bays to a convenience store, the addition of an automatic car wash, and the removal of one set of fuel pumps and associated canopy located parallel to Pio Pico Drive. The adjacent uses include City of Carlsbad City Hall to the north, general office and commercial uses to the east, Interstate-5 freeway to the west and a City owned park (Oak Park) to the south. II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DISCUSSION The following sections within the Environmental Impact Assessment Form Part II have been fully addressed within other documents which have been cited and require no additional discussion: Land Use and Planning Population and Housing Geologic Problems Water Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Hazards Noise Public Services Utility and Services Systems Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation AIR QUALITY a. 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 12 Rev. 3/28/95 • • 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 "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. b. There is no evidence that there are sensitive receptors (people susceptible to respiratory distress) proposed as part of the project. c. Experience has shown us that typical industrial buildings will not have an effect on the movement of air or cause a change in climate. d. The project description has not identified any use within the proposed building which would create objectionable odors. VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION: a. The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: (1) 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 cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an BIR 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 13 Rev. 3/28/95 • • 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. b. Parking has been provided according to the standards identified in the Carlsbad Parking Ordinance. XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: See the discussion under Air Quality and Traffic/Circulation. XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES: This project was analyzed previously and a negative declaration was issued. Further, the General Plan Master Environmental Impact Report addressed the regional issues of air quality and traffic/circulation. The current proposal is consistent with the previously approved project, the prior environmental analysis and the General Plan Final Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR 93-01). ill. SOURCE DOCUMENTS -(NOTE: All of the source documents are on file in the Planning Department located 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009, Phone (619) 438-1161.) 1. Environmental Impact Assessment Form -Part II, for Shell Oil Company (CUP 94-01), dated August 15, 1994, and the Negative Declaration for Shell Oil (CUP 94-01), dated September 2, 1994. 2. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01), City of Carlsbad Planning Department, March 1994. 14 Rev. 3/28/95 • • LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) N/A ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) N/A 15 Rev. 3/28/95 • • APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HA VE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature 16 Rev. 3/28/95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 • • PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3717 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATNE DECLARATION TO DEMOLISH ONE EXISTING FUEL ISLAND AND CANOPY AND CONVERT THE EXISTING SERVICES BAYS TO A NEW COMBINATION CONVENIENCE MARKET/CAR WASH ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRNE AND PIO PICO DRNE. CASE NAME: SHELL OIL CASE NO: CUP 94-01 WHEREAS, the Plarutlng Commission did on the 2nd day of November, 1994, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Plarutlng Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration. as follows: A) B) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit "ND", dated September 2, 1994, and "PIT", dated August 15, 1994, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: 22 Findinas: 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. 2. 3. 4. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant impact on the environment. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environmental analysis. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed project. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significantly impacted by this project. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 • • PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, lield on the 2nd day of November, 1994, by the ; following vote, to wit: A YES: Chairperson · ~vary, Commissioners Noble, Erwin, Compas, Nielsen and Monroy. NOES: Commissioner Welshans. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 13 ATTEST: 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ~~ MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RESO NO. 3717 -2- • • City of Carlsbad MAEieieihi-1•24·1¥iiie,i§,ii NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Southwest comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and Pio Pico · Drive, in Local Facilities Management Zone 1, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Addition of a 738 square foot automatic self-service car wash, removal of the existing service bays and the remodel of the existing building to include a convenience store with new exterior and interior finishes. 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 Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 21 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Terri Woods in the Planning Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4447. DATED: CASE NO: CASE NAME: SEPTEMBER 2, 1994 CUP 94-01 SHELL OIL COMPANY PUBLISH DATE: SEPTEMBER 2, 1994 1W:vd . ~ Planning Director 2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • • ENVIRONMENrAL lMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM -PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CUP 94-01 DATE: August 15, 1994 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Shell Oil Company 2. APPLICANT: Shell Oil Company/Tait & Associates 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: Tait & Associates Shell Oil Copany Ruffin Rd, Ste 230 511 N Brookhurst San Diego, CA 92123 Anaheim, CA 92803 (619) 278-1161 (714) 520-3376 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Januazy 27, 1994 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Addition of a 738 square foot automatic self-service car wash , removal of the existing service bays and the remodel of the existing building to include a convenience store with new exterior and interior finishes. ENVIRONMENT AL 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 identifie_s 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 or Negative Declaration. * 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. On the checklist, "NO" will be checked to indicate this detennination. * An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a significant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemed insignificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings "YES-sig" and "YES-insig" respectively. 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. • • PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENf WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO (sig) (insig) 1. Result in unstable earth conditions or increase the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards? X 2. Appreciably change the topography or any unique physical features? X 3. Result in or be affected by erosion of soils either on or off the site? _x 4. Result in changes in the deposition of beach sands, or modification of the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? __x 5. Result in substantial adverse effects on ambient air quality? 6. . Result in substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature? _x 7. Substantially change the course or flow of water (marine, fresh or flood waters)? _..x 8. Affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public water supply? _..x 9. Substantially increase usage or cause depletion of any natural resources? _..x 10. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? _..x 11. Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure or object? __x -2- • BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENf WILL THE PROPOSAL D[RECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic plants)? 13. Introduce new species of plants into an area, or a barrier to the normal replenishment of -existing species? 14. Reduce the amount of acreage of any . agricultural crop or affect prime, unique or other farmland of state or local importance? 15. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, all water dwelling organisms and insects? 16. Introduce new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 1 7. Alter the present or planned land use of an area? 18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? -3- YES (sig) YES (sig) • YES (insig) YES (insig) NO NO • HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems? 20. Increase existing noise levels? 21. Produce new light or glare? 22. Involve a significant ri~k of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? 23. Substantially alter the density of the human population of an area? 24. Affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 25. Generate substantial additional traffic? 26. Affect existing parking facilities, or create a large demand for new parking? 27. Impact existing transportation systems or alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? 28. Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic? 29. Increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 30. Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans? 31. Obstruct any scenic vista or create an aesthetically offensive public view? 32. Affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? -4- YES (sig) • YES (insig) X NO • • MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 33. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wild- life species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or en- dangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the m~jor periods of California history or prehistory. 34. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the dis- advantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) 35. Does the project have the possible environmental effects which are in- dividually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively con- siderable" means that the incremental effects of an individual 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.) 36. Does the project have environmental effects which-will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? -5- YES (sig) YES (insig) NO • • D[SCUSS[ON OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Project Description Remodel of an existing auto repair service type gas station and addition of a 738 square foot automatic self- service car wash. The remodel will include the conversion of the existing service bay to a convenience store and will include the removal of one set of fuel pumps and associated canopy located parallel to Pio Pico Prive. The adjacent uses include City of Carlsbad City Hall to the north, general office and commercial uses to the east, the I-5 freeway to the west and a City-owned park (Oak Park) to the south. Physical Environment 1,2. The lots were previously graded and developed. A level pad area is located in the central portion of the property. The property slopes east to west across the lot. No grading of the site is proposed as part of this project and there are no unique physical features on the site. 3. The entire site will be covered with paving, building foundation, and landscaped planters, therefore, onsite erosion of exposed soils will not result. Drainage and erosion control facilities ( during construction phase) will be incorporated into the project by condition of approval and the project will be required to meet all City Engineering standards and policies, therefore significant erosion and drainage impacts will not result. · 4,7. The project is not adjacent to a river, stream, lake or major body of water and therefore, the project drainage will not impact the deposition of beach sand or modify water features. S. The effects of the project on air quality are minimal. The gas station is an existing use on the site. Further, one of the gas pumps will be removed. Therefore, additional cumulative impacts are minimal. Cumulative effects of controlled emissions have gone beyond the acceptable level in the region. Air quality is a regional issue as the San Diego Basin is a non-attainment basin for air quality. 6. The site is relatively small (0.65 acres) and contains an existing gas station with service bays, therefore, onsite physical conditions will not be drastically altered and impacts to air movement, moisture, and temperature will be minimal. The fuel dispensing nozzles are required to contain vapor recovery systems and these have already been installed in the existing gas station, thus reducing the impacts of odor. · 8. The proposed car wash contains a water recycling system with eventual discharge into the sewage system. Approval of the project will be conditioned with the requirement to obtain any necessary permits for waste water discharge. The project will also be conditioned to comply with all National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) requirements. The site is currently developed, therefore, the new car wash and convenience store will not significantly increase the cumulative impacts created by urban runoff into surrounding man-made and natural drainage facilities. 9,10 The project is very small in scale, covering only .65 acres, therefore during the construction phase the usage of natural resources will be insignificant. The gas station is a service use and will not consume substantial amounts of fuel or energy. -6- • • 11. The project site has been previously graded and developed with gas station and service bays, therefore, significant impacts to archeological or paleontological resources is not anticipated. Biological Environment 12-16 The project site has been previously graded and developed with a gas station with service bays. The project site is surrounded by development including the Carlsbad City Hall to the north, offices to the east, [nterstate-5 to the west and a City owned park (Oak Park) to the south. Therefore, no significant negative impacts to biological resources or animal travel and migration are anticipated from this project. The site contains no natural plant or animal habitats or species. Human Environment 17. The site is designated for Travel Service land uses on the General Plan Land Use Map and the proposed use is consistent with this designation. 18. The project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning and will be conditioned to comply with the requirements of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1. As a result of the project's conformance with adopted land use and facility plan, it will not significantly impact public facilities. The adopted Facilities Management Plan assures that all public facilities will be in place prior to development. 19. The project will be required to comply with any water pollution control requirements, solid waste disposal requirements and NPDES requirements limiting impacts to solid, sewage, and hazardous waste systems. 20. The self-service car wash will increase noise levels on the site but will not significantly impact surrounding land uses or significantly increase the ambient noise levels of the area. The project is located adjacent to a freeway off-ramp and the intersection of two roadways, one of which is a circulation element roadway (Carlsbad Village Drive). The freeway and Carlsbad Village Drive generate high levels of noise. The Ryko Model R7B Ultra Clean with Thrust Pro Dryer with noise reduction package generates noise in the range of 68. 7 to 69.0 dBA Leq during the drying cycle (measured at 50 feet from the entrance and exit of the car wash). Noise in the range of 70 to 75 dBA CNEL is equivalent to average street noise or a radio. Therefore, the ambient noise levels on the site will be above the noise level generated by the car wash. The only sensitive land use in the area is the City owned park located adjacent to this site (to the south) approximately 60 feet from the entrance of the car wash. As mitigated, the noise generated by the dryers of the car wash will be at or below the ambient noise levels at the southern property line of the site adjacent to the park. 21. The existing gas station contains two separate gas fueling areas with canopies. The single gas pump area and canopy along. Pio Pico Drive will be removed as part of the improvements of the site. As designed, the project will not incrementally add light and glare to the surrounding environment. The canopy that covers the fueling area will screen light downward and prevent light from spilling outward or upward, thus reducing impacts to surrounding parcels. 22. Storage of gasoline will occur on the site. This storage will be required to meet all City, State, and Federal laws regarding storage of hazardous materials. The release of these hazardous materials at -7- • • surface level will be prevented through the use of a delivery system that prevents large surface spills and an oil/grease separator to prevent surface runoff from containing any petroleum products pursuant to all NPDES requirements. The on-site specially lined and coated underground gasoline tanks will prevent stored gasoline from leaking into the surrounding groundwater system. These tanks are designed to prevent deterioration of the tank from the solvent action of the gasoline and the corrosive action of the surrounding soil and its associated moisture. 23,24 The proposed land use is commercial service, therefore the project will not substantially alter the density of the human population in the area or substantially effect housing. The gas station already exists and the new development results in a minor intensification of the site's land use, resulting in an insignificant change in employment and subsequent demand for housing. 25,27,29 The project (with four gas pumps, mini-market, and car wash) will generate an estimated 1240 Average Daily Trips (ADT) which is less than the 1560 ADT generated by the existing use with six gas pumps and three service bays. As the use will generate less traffic, no significant circulation/traffic impacts are anticipated from project implementation. 26. The project complies with the City's Parking Ordinance and has twelve parking spaces (nine required) onsite, therefore the project will not affect existing parking facilities or create a large demand for new offsite parking. 28. The project will have no effect on waterborne, rail or air traffic. 30. The project will not interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. The traffic projection for the site indicates that 1240 ADT are anticipate for the use. This is a decrease from the existing traffic generated by the service station (1560 ADT) and thus will not significantly impact traffic circulation on Carlsbad Village Drive or Pio Pico Drive. Traffic circulation and access will be adequate to handle the traffic demand, therefore, adequate emergency access and evacuation of the site is anticipated. · 31. The project will not obstruct scenic vistas and the approved building elevations, materials, and architecture will not create an aesthetically offensive public view. Extensive site plan review of the project by the Planning Department will ensure that the improvements are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and comply with all City ordinances and policies. Conditions of approval for the site plan will require landscaping to enhance the visual aesthetics of the development and provide some visual screening of the building and driveways. 32. The project will not adversely affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities. Mandatory Findings of Significance 33. The site was previously graded and developed with gas station uses. The site is surrounded by urban development on three sides and a small City park on one side. The park is well screened by trees ( on the park site) from the subject site. As a result of the existing site conditions, the project will not have an impact on biological or cultural resources. -8- 34,35 • • The additional intensification of the land use from a gas station with service bays to a gas station with self-service car wash and convenience market will not create substantial additional cumulative impacts, nor effect longer term environmental goals. The land use is planned for in the General Plan and is consistent with the zoning (with a conditional use permit), both of which are tools used to balance the City's long range environmental goals with its physical development goals. 36. Noise, fuel dispe~ing hazards, and additional traffic circulation and safety concerns have been identified and considered in this evaluation and it h~s been determined that the project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings~ either directly or indirectly. -9- • • ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS: a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site designs, c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the site, e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alternate sites for the proposed project, and g) no project alternative. a) The small size of the project and the nature of the land use prohibits the use of development phasing. b) This project has been redesigned to improve site circulation and reduce traffic impacts. This was done by closing two of the driveways on Pio Pico Drive leaving one driveway which was moved farther away from the intersection of Carlsbad Village Drive and Pio Pico Drive. Further one of the gasoline pumps and canopy has been removed to improve circulation on the site. c) Elimination of the car wash or convenience store would reduce the Average Daily Trips, reduce the onsite traffic demand and create a less intensely developed site. d) The gas station/ car wash/ convenience market is consistent with the planned land use for the site and alternative uses for the property would consist of similar traffic generating uses such as drive-in restaurants, hotels and commercial services. · e) The site is. currently developed with a similar type of land use (gas station/auto service). f) Comer lots with adequate lot acreage for on-site circulation located on major circulation element roadways, with no adjacent residential uses would be appropriate alternative sites. This site meets the above criteria. g) The no project alternative would have minimal benefit in this evaluation due to a similar use already existing on the site (gas station with service bays). The remodeled gas station with new convenience store and car wash would enhance the site with improved architecture, increased landscaping, improved traffic circulation by the closing of two driveways and the removal of one fuel service island, and rehabilitation and enhancement of other on-site improvements. -10- • • DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) _On the basis of this initial evaluation: ·_i I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. l find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, because the environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction with previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is required. Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a si~cant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date Signature Date' LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) ATTACH Mm GA TION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) -11- ' • APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MmGATING MEASURES TW:vd THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature K:VJ)MIN\MERGE\DOC\EIAPT2.DOC -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 • • PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3718 A RESOLUTION OF THE PIANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE RENUMBERING AND AMENDMENT TO A CONDIDONAL USE PERMIT TO DEMOLISH ONE FUELING ISLAND AND CANOPY AND CONVERT THE EXISTING SERVICE BAYS TO A NEW COMBINATION CONVENIENCE MARKET/CAR WASHANDAPPROVING A SIGN 45 FEET ABOVE THE FREEWAY ON PROPERTY GENERALLYLOCATEDATTHESOUTHWESTCORNER OF CARLSBAD VILIAGE DRIVE AND PIO PICO DRIVE. CASE NAME: SHELL OIL CASE NO: CUP 94-01 WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment as provided by Section 21.26.015 and Chapter 21.42 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission did, on the 2nd day of November, 1994, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider said application on property described as: A portion of Tract 115 of Town of Carlsbad, according to Map 775, filed February 15, 1994, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said ·Commissi9n considered all factors relating to renumbering and amending CUP 157 to CUP 94-01. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: 27 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 28 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 B) • • That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission APPROVES renumbering and amending CUP 157 to CUP 94-01, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Fin dines: 1. 2. 3. 4. The project is consistent with all· City public facility policies and ordinances since: a. b. c. d. The Planning Commission has, by inclusion of an appropriate condition to this project, ensured that the project will not be approved unless the City Council finds that sewer seivice is available to se~e the project. In addition, the Planning Commission has added a condition that a note shall be placed on the project that building perm.its may not be issued for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer seivice is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer seivice remains available, and the Planning Commission is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to sewer seJVice for this project. · All necessary public improvements have been provided or will be required as conditions of approval. The applicant has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropri'ate 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. 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 future land uses since surrounding properties are designated for commercial/governmental/open space uses on 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 and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project. This project will not cause any significant environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration has been issued by the Planning Director on September 2, 1994, and Approved by the Planning Commission on November 2, 1994. In approving this Negative Declaration the Planning Commission has considered the initial study, the staff analysis, and any written comments received regarding the effects this project could have on the environment. PC RESO NO. 3718 -2- • • 1 5. 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 2 Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1. 3 6. The proposed project complies with the findings necessary for a Conditional 4 Use Permit as follows: 5 A. That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, is essentially in harmony with the various elements and objectives 6 of the general plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses 7 specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located because tbe proposed service station and car wash will; (1) serve tourists and 8 motorists traveling Carlsbad Village Drive and the 1-5 Freeway corridor; (2) diversify the range of commercial services available to local residents and 9 tourists of the area; (3) the car wash will have a water recycling system, thus allowing motorists to wash their automobiles while conserving water; ( 4) the 10 project will not be detrimental to existing uses as adequate distances between 11 the proposed car wash and adjacent properties have been provided and the project's architecture ls compatible with the styles prevalent In the Immediate 12 area. 13 B. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to 14 accommodate the use because; (1) adequate onsite parking Is provided to accommodate the use; (2) adequate vehicle stacking Is provided at the 15 entrance to the car wash; (3) the site has adequate room for vehicle turning movements; and ( 4) circulation will be improved by eliminating two or the 16 three driveways along Pio Pico Drive. 17 C. That all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features 18 necessary to adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be provided and maintained. Adequate landscaping, 19 decorative wall, and moundlnwJ>erming are provided along the perimeter of the project to screen the building, parking, and areas for waiting cars from 20 adjacent properties and the public right-of-way. 21 D. That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly 22 handle all traffic generated by the proposed use because; (1) less traffic will be generated by this project than the existing use and therefore, the street 23 system will not be slgnlftcantly Impacted by this project; (2) development or the project Is contingent upon adequate public facilities and, (3) two or the 24 three driveways located along Pio Pico will be removed and the one remaining 25 driveway will be relocated improving Ingress and egress to the site. i 7. That this service station existed prior to April 14, 1970 when Resolution No 657 was I 26 I· adopted, and therefore, the locational criteria for service stations, required pursuant 27 to Chapter 21.42.010(7)(A) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code are not applicable as 28 provided for In Section 21.42.010(7)(C) or the Carlsbad Municipal Code. PC RESO NO. 3718 -3- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 • • 8. The existing use on the site (service station with four bays) was approved under a previous Conditional Use Permit CUP 157, Planning Commission Resolution No. 1479. All conditions of the previously approved project as well as CUP 157 are superseded by this Resolution No. 3718. 9. The project is not consistent with the City's landscape requirement of a 6' minimum · perimeter planter area and therefore, this project will not be approved unless this landscape requirement ls modified through approval of an Administrative Variance. 10. The height of the freeway pole sign at 45 feet above the freeway elevation ts necessary because of severe constraints on its visibility caused by vegetation and topography. 8 Conditions: 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. 2. . 3. 4. 5. 6. Approval is granted for CUP 94-01, as shown on Exhibit(s) "A" -"G", except as modified to provide the required 6' wide planter area, dated October 19, 1994, incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning Department. Development shall occur substantially as shown unless othetwise noted in these conditions, and approved by the Planning Director and City Engineer. All conditions of Planning Commission Resolution No. 1457 and prior CUP 157 shall be superseded by this resolution, No. 3718 and CUP 94-01. The developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24" x 36", mylar copy of the Site Plan as approved by the Planning Commission. The Site Plan shall reflect the conditions of approval by the City. The Plan copy shall be submitted to the City Engineer prior to building, grading or improvement plan submittal, whichever occurs first. This project is approved upon the express condition that 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. This project is also approved under the express condition that the applicant pay the public facilities fee adopted by the City Council on July 28, 1987 (amended July 2, 1991), and as amended from time to time, and any development fees established by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code or other ordinance adopted to implement a growth management system or facilities and improvement plan and to fulfill the subdivider's agreement to pay the public facilities fee dated July 28, 1994, a copy of which is on file with the City Oerk 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. Water shall be provided by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which may be 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. PC RESO NO. 3718 -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 • • 7. 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 City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with all requirements of law. 8. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all sections of the Zoning ! Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building permit issuance. 9. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this project within one year from the date of project approval. 10. Approval of CUP 94-01 is granted subject to the approval of an Administrative Variance· for reduced planter width. 11. This conditional use permit is granted for a period of five (5) years. This conditional use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Director on a yearly basis to determine if all conditions of this permit have been met and that the use does not have a significant detrimental impact on surrounding properties or the public health and welfare. If the Planning Director determines that the use has such significant adverse impacts, the Planning Director shall recommend that the Planning Commission, 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. In granting such extension, the Planning Commission 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 conditional use permit. There is no limit to the number of extensions the Planning Commission may grant. · 12. If the property owner/owners' address changes from that which is shown on the conditional .use permit application, a notice of a change of address shall be reported, in writing, to the Planning Department within 30 days. 13. 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 Planning Director, notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Negative Declaration and Conditional Use Permit by Resolution Nos. 3717 and 3718 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 PC RESO NO. 3718 -5- • • 1 inclusion in the deed restriction. Said deed restriction( s) may be modified or terminated only with the approval of the Planning Director, Planning Commission 2 or City Council of the City of Carlsbad whichever has final decision authority for this project. 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 14. Trash· recep~cle areas shall be enclosed by a six-foot high masoncy wall with gates pursuant to City standards. Location of said receptacles shall be approved by the Planning Director. Enclosure shall be of similar colors and/or materials to the , project to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 15. All roof appurtenan~s, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and ' streets, in substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the Directors of Planning and Building. 16. The car wash shall incorporate water recycling equipment into Its design. 17. This project Is approved with the Ryko Model R7B Ultra Clean with Thrust Pro Dryer with noise reduction package. Other models may be used by the developer, however, such equipment shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and shall not exceed a noise level of 69 dBA Leq at 50 feet from the exit or entrance to the car wash. Documentation that the noise generation potential of alternative equipment shall be submitted for review by the Planning Director. 18. Prior to the issuance of building permits, an exterior lighting plan including parking areas shall be submitted for Planning Director approval. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent properties. 19. Aisles, passageways, and recesses related to and within the building complex shall be illuminated with an Intensity of at least twenty-five one hundredths (.25) f ootcandles at the ground level during the hours of darkness. Lighting devices shall be protected by weather and vandalism resistant covers. 20. Open parking areas shall be provided with a maintained minimum of (1) footcandle of light on the parking surface during the hours of darkness. Lighting devices shall be protected by weather and vandalism covers. 21. Hollow steel doors shall have a minimum sixteen U.S. gauge and sufficient reinforcement to maintain the designed thickness of the door when locking device Is Installed. Glass doors shall have fully tempered glass or rated burglary resistant glazing. All swing exterior doors shall be equipped with a dead bolt. All doors shall be equipped with an astragal constructed of steel a minimum of .125 Inch thick which will cover the opening between the doors. The astragal shall be attached to the outside by means or welding or with non-removable bolts spaced apart on not more than ten Inch centers. The jamb on all aluminum frame swinging doors shall be so constructed or protected to withstand 1600 pounds or pressure lo both a vertical distance of three Inches and horizontal distance of one Inch each side of the PC RESO NO. 3718 -6- • • 1 strike, so as to prevent violation of the strike. Panic hardware shall be installed whenever It Is required by the Uniform Building Code. 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 22. Special attention should be given to the cashier area. It should be placed to afford the cashier vlslblllty of the entire complex, with no signs or obstacles Impeding surveillance. Consideration should be given to electronic security devices such as electronic surveillance cameras .and 211/Robbery/Hold-up transmission buttons. Monitoring and communication should be available from the gas pumps to the cashier area. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. No outdoor storage of material shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief. In such instance a storage plan will be submitted for approval by the Fire Chief and the Planning Director. No outdoor displays or storage shall be permltt~ on the site. Working drawings shall show that the block wall used on the project perimeter adjacent to Pio Pico Drive shall be of a material and color to match the exterior color of the project, prior to certificate of occupancy. At minimum, 6 foot perimeter landscape planters shall be provided on the site, except as may be approved by an Administrative Variance. This project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code. The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan which shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, whichever occurs first. A schedule for landscape maintenance shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director to ensure that all landscaped areas are maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris. 30. 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. 31. The applicant shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Se~on 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 32. The first set of landscape and irrigation plans submitted shall include building plans, improvement plans and grading plans. 33. Mounding/henning shall be used along the perimeter of the site and within the ~nterior landscape areas. PC RESO NO. 3718 -7- 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 • • 34. A uniform sign program for this development shall be submitted to the Planning Director for his review and approval prior to occupancy or any building. No signage Including any commercial advertisements located along the gasoline pump Islands, In windows, and on the building shall be permitted unless a revised sign program is approved by the Planning Director. 35. As part of the plans submitted for building permit plan check, the applicant shall include a reduced version of the approving resolution/resolutions on a 24" x 36" blueline drawing. 36. The curb around the perimeter of the convenience store shall be painted red to · prohibit parking in front of or along side the building. 37. The applicant is aware that the City is preparing a non-residential housing impact fee ; Qinkage 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 /' have to pay a linkage fee, in order to be found consistent 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 j ordinance and/or resolution, then the applicant for this project, or his/her/their 1 successor( s) in interest shall pay the linkage fee. The linkage fee shall be paid at the I time of issuance of building permits, except for projects involving a request for a non- residential planned unit development for an existing development, in which case, the : fee shall be paid on approval of the final map, parcel map or certificate of . compliance, required to process the non-residential PUD, whichever pertains. If i 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 . ~~ l,i En&ineerina Conditions: ' I 38. Unless a standards variance has been issued, no variance from City Standards is · authorized by virtue of approval of this site plan. 39. The applicant shall comply with all the rules, regulations and design requirements of ! the respective sewer and water agencies regarding services to the project. : I 40. The applicant shall be responsible for coordination with S.D.G.& E., Pacific Bell ' Telephone, and Cable TV authorities. 41. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall pay all current fees and deposits required. 42. Prior to approval of the building permit, the owner of the subject property shall I · execute an agreement holding the City harmless regarding drainage across the adjacent property. PC RESO NO. 3718 -8- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 • • 43. Pretreatment of the sanita:ry 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 the Conditional Use Permit. 44. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within this project, 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 regards to the hauling operation. 45. 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 building permit. 46. Prior to building permit Issuance, the applicant shall obtain a right-of-way permit, an approved traffic control plan, and submit all appropriate securities as deemed necessary by the City Engineer for all work to be done in the public right-of-way. Fire Conditions: 47. . 48. 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. 19 Carlsbad Municipal Water District Conditions: 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 49. The entire potable and non-potable water system/systems for subject project shall be evaluated in detail to ensure that adequate capacity, pressure and flow demands can be met. 50. Sequentially, the Developer's Engineer shall do the following: a. b. c. 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. Prepare a colored reclaimed water use area map and submit to the Planning Department for processing and approval. 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 prelimina:ry system layouts and usages (i.e. - GPM-EDU) PC RESO NO. 3718 -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 • • 51. The developer will be responsible for all 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 Installation. 52. . 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 service ls available at the time or application for such water service and sewer permits will continue to be available until time of occupancy. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of November, 1994, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Savary, Commissioners Noble, Erwin, Compas, Nielsen, and Monroy. NOES: Commissioner Welshans. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. CARLSBAD PI.ANNING COMMISSION ATIEST: MICHAEWHOLZMILLER PI.ANNING DIRECTOR PC RESO NO. 3718 -10- JOB NO. SH769 • • City of Carlsbad -Ufif,f ,hef·l•24·E1Ueet4,il DISCLOSL'RE STATEMENT A?PLJCANT'S ST .l. -:'E..,.ENT ::F ::1SCLOSURE OF CEF=lTAJN OWNERSHIP 1NTEFIESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL AEQu,AE i:ISCRETIONARY ACTION ON Tl-tE PAF=l"i OF THE CITV COWNCIL 01=1 ANY:~~~~~~':.._~ COMMISSION OR CCMMITTEE. :Please Print) The following information must be disclosed: .. ~ \ . _;.,_/ 1. Applicant List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application. SHELL OIL COMPANY 511 N. BROOKHURST STREET ANAHEIM, CA 92803 2. Owner List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. SHELL OIL COMPANY ARTHUR E. FRANKS 511 N BROOKHURST STREET 1145 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE ANAHEIM, CA 92803 CARLSBAD, CA 92803 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names and addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 4. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names and addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the trust. FRM00013 8/90 2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-48!59 • (619) 438-1161 C.U.P. 94-01 JOB NO. SH769 • • {Over) Disclosure Statement Page 2 5. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff. Scares Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes _ No i If yes, please indicate person(s) _____________________ _ Per'lOti 11 defined u: 'Any individual, firm, copaitnership, Joint venture. auociatton. social club. fraternal organization. corporation. estate. trt..st. rec4!,;;f, syndicate, tr111 and any other county. c:rty and county, c:rty mun1c1palrty. district or other pcl1t1cal aubdiv111on. or any ouier gro1..p or c:omb1nat1on acting u I unit.• ttach additional pages as necessary.) RICHARD ZANONI KA. HAYDEN Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant FRM00013 8/90 • APPLICA norloMPLETE DA TE: AUGUST 11, 1994 STAFF PLANNER: TERRI WOODS STAFF REPORT ® DA TE: NOVEMBER 2, 1994 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: CUP 94-01 -SHELL OIL -Request for approval of a Negative Declaration and an amendment of a Conditional Use Permit to accomplish the following actions: (1) to demolish existing fuel pumps and canopy; (2) to remodel the existing gas station service bays as a new combination convenience market and self-serve car wash; and (3) to permit a freeway oriented service sign to 45 feet above the freeway, at the southwest comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and Pio Pico Drive, in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3717 APPROVING the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director, and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3718 APPROVING CUP 94-01, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting approval of an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow several modifications to an existing gas station at the above location. The modifications include demolishing the existing fuel pumps/canopy adjacent to Pio Pico Drive and removing the existing service bays and installing a combination self-serve car wash/convenience market. The applicant is also requesting approval of a freeway service facility sign (non-conforming sign exists) 45-feet above the freeway. The .65 acre site is zoned Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) and is subject to a Travel Recreation Commercial (T-R) General Plan Designation. Within the C-1 Zone, convenience markets are permitted by right; service stations and car washes are permitted subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. There are general findings required for approval of a Conditional Use Permit as well as specific findings required for a service station and a car wash. The current use is subject to CUP 157 which was approved for a service station with four service bays. The conditions of this CUP amendment would supersede all conditions of the previous approval. Due to a new numbering system, the original CUP number has been changed from CUP 157 to CUP 94-01. CUP 94-01 -SHELL OIL NOVEMBER 2, 1994 PAGB2 • • The subject site slopes down from east to west with the center of the site being relatively flat. The project site is surrounded by a variety of uses including City Hall to the north, office and restaurant uses to the east, Oak Park to the south, and lnterstate-5 to the west. lnterstate-5 is elevated approximately 10 feet above the subject site. As shown on Exhibit "A", access to the site will be provided along Carlsbad Village Drive and Pio Pico Drive. The site design includes upgraded exterior finishes, reduced signage, increased landscaping, including perimeter landscaping (average 6 feet wide), and a 3 foot high masonry screen wall along the eastern side of the project to partially screen queuing areas of the car wash. Interior landscaping has been provided adjacent to the east side of the car wash and on the southern portion of the site. This request includes a sign program which consists of approximately 93.2 square feet of wall signage, 96 square feet of price/identification signage, and 144 square feet of freeway pole signage. The applicant is requesting that the freeway-oriented pole sign be permitted to remain 45 feet above the freeway elevation. This sign existed prior to the City's revision to the sign ordinance which now allows freeway-oriented signs to extend to 50-feet above freeway elevations with Planning Commission approval. ill. ANALYSIS Planning Issues The requested conditional use permit for a service station and car wash is subject to general CUP findings as well as specific findings for a service station and for a car wash. The three separate sets of findings are discussed below. The proposed project is subject to the following land use policies, ordinances and standards: A. Travel/Recreation (TR) Commercial General Plan Land Use Designation. B. Chapter 21.42 (Conditional Uses) and 21.26.015 (C-1, Conditional Uses) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. C. Growth Management Ordinance (Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 1). DISCUSSION A. GENERAL PLAN The project is consistent with the intent of the Travel/Recreation (TR) Commercial General Plan designation which provides for commercial services to meet the needs of tourists, residents and employees of the City. The proposed uses are consistent with the General Plan since the service station/car wash/convenience market will be located adjacent to two major circulation routes which serve the needs of travelers, residents and businesses. The site's location at the intersection CUP 94-01 -SHELL OIL. NOVEMBER 2, 1994 PAGE4 ISSUE STANDARD Signage 105 square feet MonUlllent Signage 48 square feet (per street frontage) MonUlllent Sign Height 6 feet Pole Sign Size 150 square feet Pole Sign Height 35 feet above freeway elevation (Planning Commis.9on may approve up to 50 feet) Parking 9 parking spaces Building Height 35 feet • PROPOSED 96.2 square feet 48 sq. ft (per street frontage) 6 feet 144 square feet 45 feet above freeway elevation 10 parking spaces 15.6 feet As shown on the above table, the applicant's proposed sign program is in accordance with the maximum signage permitted for the proposed development. The site is considered a "freeway service facility" under City ordinances and has an existing 55' high pole sign (45' above the freeway elevation) with a 15' x 15' (225 square feet) SHELL logo sign. The maximum area allowed on a freeway pole sign serving a single use is 150 square feet. The applicant is proposing to decrease the existing sign size from 15' x 15' (225 square feet) to 12' x 12' (144 square feet) to bring the sign in conformance with the sign ordinance. The applicant is requesting that the sign height be allowed to remain at 45' above the freeway elevation. The sign ordinance (Section 21.41.070(3)(B)) permits signs up to fifty feet in height above the freeway if the Planning Commission finds that the increased height is necessary because of severe constraints on view caused by topography, natural vegetation or existing buildings. The existing sign is 45 feet above the height of the freeway. As shown on Exhibit "H", if the sign were lowered 10 feet to 35 feet above the freeway, the sign would not be visible from the north bound approach until a motorist was almost at the freeway off ramp. This is due to the eucalyptus trees at Holiday Park and along the freeway obscuring the view of the sign. The sign becomes fully visible at the requested 45 feet above the freeway. Therefore, staff supports the applicant's request to maintain the sign height at 45 feet above the freeway. 3. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use for the following reasons: a) Adequate onsite parking would be provided to service the use. Four spaces would be provided on the west side of the site for convenience store customers, four parking spaces would be provided on the east side of the project for the drying and preparing of automobiles and for convenience store customers, and two spaces would be provided at the rear of the site for employees, for a total of 10 spaces provided on the site. The site plan (Exhibit "A") shows 12 parking spaces. Two of these parking spaces are not supported by staff as the spaces must be removed CUP 94-01 -SHELL OU.. NOVEMBER 2, 1994 PAGE3 • • of Carlsbad Village Drive and Pio Pico Drive adjacent to futerstate-5 enables easy and direct access from the freeway as well as commercial uses to the west along Carlsbad Village Drive. B. CONDITIONAL USES The project would not adversely affect the viability or the use of the area for commercial, governmental or open space purposes, nor adversely affect traffic movement in the vicinity. The site has been designed to reduce the visual impacts of buildings and waiting automobiles on surrounding development and from public streets. The structures have been architecturally designed to ensure compatibility with surrounding development. Adequate parking and circulation is provided onsite to accommodate the proposed uses. The proposed service station and car wash require approval of general conditional use findings as well as specific findings for the service station and the car wash. A discussion of these findings follows below. General CUP Findings The project continues to implement the intent of the original conditional use permit and the proposed CUP as follows: 1. For the reasons listed below the requested uses (service station and car wash) are necessary or desirable for the development of the community: a) The project would serve tourists and motorists traveling along Carlsbad Village Drive and the I-5 freeway corridor. b) The car wash would have a water recycling system, thus allowing motorists to wash their automobiles and conserve water at the same time. c) As there are currently no full service car washes in the City, the self service car wash will help meet the needs of tourists and residents alike in the area. 2. The project is in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan and is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance as follows: a) The gas station/convenience store/car wash use is permitted in the Tourist/Recreation Commercial (TR) General plan land use designation. b) With ten parking spaces provided, the proposed project exceeds the required parking of nine spaces for the proposed use. c) The project would be compatible with and not detrimental to adjacent or nearby uses as the project would provide improved building design and upgraded landscaping. Traffic and circulation would be improved over the existing use. d) The project conforms with the Sign Ordinance and C-1 Zoning requirements for automobile service stations as summarized below: CUP 94-01 -SHELL OIL NOVEMBER 2, 1994 PAGES • • to provide 6' wide minimum planter areas. This staff report therefore, refers to 10 parking spaces only. b) Self-service car washes typically have 3 to 5 minute wash and dry cycles. Since it is unlikely that patrons would be willing to wait more than 15 minutes to use the facility, the five-car stacking area provided at the entrance to the car wash should be more than adequate. c) Two of the three driveways along Pio Pico Drive would be eliminated and the remaining driveway relocated to improve circulation on the site. Further, the gasoline fueling pump island and canopy along Pio Pico Drive would be removed to further improve circulation on the site. Traffic on the site will be lower (1,240 ADT), as proposed with improvements, than as it exists today (1,560 ADT), due to the removal of one gas fueling island. 4. The design features necessary to adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the surrounding area would be provided and are listed below: a) The building's height, roof and wall treatments would be compatible with the surrounding area. b) Adequate landscaping and screen walls would be provided along the perimeter and interior of the project site to soften building facades as well as to screen waiting cars and parked cars from adjacent properties and the public right-of-way. c) The street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed project. Based on the current SANDAG vehicular traffic generation rates, the proposed addition of the convenience store and car wash, combined with the removal of one of the existing gasoline fueling islands, results in an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume of 1,240, which is less that the current ADT volume of 1,560. Service Station Findings A service station is a use permitted in the C-1 Zone subject to a conditional use permit pursuant to the following findings and conditions: 1. Architectural elevations which harmonize with the neighborhood. The architecture of the surrounding area varies greatly from the low scale, stucco- finished City Hall at the north, to the two story, colonial style offices at the east. The applicant has proposed to upgrade the existing facade and landscaping to update the appearance of the existing structure, as well as to make the remodeled structure compatible with surrounding uses. The remodel -of the existing service bays as a combined convenience market/car wash will include new exterior and interior finishes. CUP 94-01 -SHELL OIL NOVEMBER 2, 1994 PAGE6 • • The new building finishes will include light gray textured wall panels with a dark gray texcote finish (similar in appearance to stucco) along the facia. Two yellow accent panels will be provided around the building consistent with the Shell Corporate design. The finish of the existing canopy along Carlsbad Village Drive will be upgraded to the gray texcote finish consistent with the main structure. A gray canvas canopy will be installed over the exit of the car wash to add interest to the structure as well as to reduce the visual impacts of the car wash exit. The remodeled structure and canopy will be in keeping with the small scale developments of the area. Additional landscaping will also be installed to improve the compatibility of the use. 2. Landscape plans which comply with the following minimum standards: STANDARD COMPLIANCE Minimum 6-foot perimeter planters and Minimum 6 foot average provided ( 4 areas along the planters adjacent to structure perimeter do not meet the 6 foot minimum standard)* Six-inch concrete curb bounding planters Provided as designed and conditioned Combination of flowers, shrubs & trees Provided as designed and conditioned Sprinkler system which covers all Provided as designed and conditioned landscaped areas Delineate maintenance schedule and As conditioned, the applicant will maintain per an responsibility for landscaped areas approved schedule, all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition. "!ne mscuss1on oe1ow more 1w1 ex >1ams tnts item. y p As proposed, there are four areas along the perimeter of the site which do not meet the 6 foot minimum planter depth. However, the site does exceed a 6-foot average perimeter landscape area by 11 percent with a total of 4,250 square feet of perimeter landscaping. The following table summarizes the issues and includes a staff recommendation for each planter area. The applicant has requested that all four areas not meeting the 6 foot minimum depth criteria be approved as proposed. (See Exhibit "I" for the location of these planter areas.) CUP 94-01 -SHELL OIL. NOVEMBER 2, 1994 PAGE7 PLANTER AREA Planter Area #l Planter Area #2 Planter Area #3 Planter Area #4 APPLICANT REQUEST Provide a 4 to 5 foot wide planter area. The reduction is required for the following reasons: A 6 foot planter area would create a narrow unsafe queuing lane and would create an inside turning radius below the minimum standard; the building is existing and not proposed for demolition; and the reduced landscaped planter would not negatively impact exiting uses. Planter is reduced to 3.5 feet increasing to 15 feet in width. The reduction is requested to provide additional employee/proprietor parking onsite. Planter is reduced to 5 feet increasing to 13 feet in width. The reduction is requested to provide additional customer parking onsite. Planter is reduced to 4 feet in width in this area. The reduction is requested for the following reasons: the current vehicle lane is 14.5 feet wide which is below the 15 foot minimum vehicle lane standard of Shell Oil; the fuel pumps are existing and are not proposed for relocation; Shell Oil already experiences customers hitting the curb with the existing 14.5 foot wide vehicle lane; and, due to removal of the fuel pumps on Pio Pico, the use of the island will increase, exposing more customers to the narrowed travel lane. :see u"' ui=1on oe1ow ior an expauuc" wscuss1on or UllS issue. • STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff supports the reduced land.sea pe planter width of 4 to 5 feet in this area for the reasons listed below*. Staff does not support this request as the provision of a 6 foot planter is pos.9ble without violating other City standards. The project exceeds City parking requirements (9 required, 10 provided) with the los<; of the parking space for the installation of the planter. Staff does not support this request as the provision of a 6 foot planter is pos.9ble without violating other City standards. The project exceeds City parking requirements (9 required, 10 provided) with the }cs<; of the parking space for the installation of the planter. Staff does not support the request as the provision of a 6 foot planter is poSffible without violating other City standards. There are no City standards for fuel pump vehicle lane widths. However, after visiting the site and reviewing photographs of the vehicle lane in use, staff believes that a reduction in aisle width to 12.5 feet would not cause a hazardous condition. CUP 94-01 -SHELL OIL NOVEMBER 2, 1994 PAGES • • Staff supports the project with the 4 and 5 foot wide planter (Planter Area #1, as shown on Exhibit "A") as the proposed project's lack of a 6 foot planter at the one location is entirely off- set by the remodeled structure with upgraded architectural treatments, increased landscaping, reduced signage on the site, improved circulation on the site, and the removal of a fuel pump and canopy. The reduced landscaping along Pio Pico Drive and along the southern property line will not negatively impact existing uses in the area, as the 4 foot planter already exists. Further, as proposed, the 4 foot planter would be enhanced with new screening shrubs and a decorative 3 foot high screen wall which will reduce the impact of the queuing area for the car wash. Finally, staff believes that the landscape requirement as written in the ordinance was intended to ensure compatibility of gas stations with surrounding uses; it was not intended to preclude the remodeling or upgrading of facilities on the site. Without removing a portion of the existing building, a six foot wide planter cannot be provided at this location. As conditioned, the applicant is required to process an Administrative Variance for the reduced planter area as may be approved under this Conditional Use Permit. 3. A six foot high wall constructed adjacent to adjoining residential and professional property. The adjoining properties on the south and west are designated for open space and transportation corridor purposes, respectively. Therefore, a six-foot high wall is not required. 4. All exterior lighting shielded or oriented in such a way so as not to glare on adjacent property. As conditioned, the project will be designed to ensure that all exterior lighting is shielded or oriented in such a way so as not to glare on adjacent properties. 5. All displays and storage contained within the main structure. As conditioned all displays and storage shall be contained within the main structure. 6. Trash containers contained within a six-foot high enclosure. As designed and conditioned, all trash containers will be contained within a six-foot high enclosure. 7. All signs provided in conformance with the City's sign ordinance. As discussed above, the applicant's proposed sign program is in accordance with the maximum signage permitted for the proposed development. 8. Full public improvements may be required for the public convenience and necessity. As conditioned, all necessary public improvements shall be provided. CUP 94-01 -SHELL OIL. NOVEMBER 2, 1994 PAGE9 9. Service station locational requirements. • As provided for in Section 21.42.010(7)(C), locational requirements for service stations shall not apply to stations in existence at the time of adoption of the ordinance. This service station existed prior to April 14, 1970 when this section of ordinance was codified. Car Wash Findings: A car wash is a use permitted in the C-1 zone subject to the following findings and conditions: 1. The site shall be designed to reduce the visual impacts of buildings and waiting cars on surrounding development and from public streets. The proposed self service car wash would be part of an existing service station facility where similar uses already exist onsite. The car wash would be installed in one of the existing service bays which would be architecturally integrated with the rest of the building. New exterior finishes would be provided on the structure and a gray canvas canopy installed over the exit to the car wash. The queuing area for the car wash has been screened by landscaping and a 3' screen wall. Additionally, a large landscape planter will be provided along the east side of the car wash to soften the building facade. 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. As discussed above under the service station findings, the proposed remodeled structure with new exterior finishes, additional landscaping, and reduced signage will be compatible with surrounding development. 3. Noise analysis may be required for the car wash. Based on the data submitted by the applicant, the self-service car wash will increase noise levels on the site but will not significantly increase the noise levels of the area. The project is located adjacent to a freeway off-ramp and at the intersection of Carlsbad Village Drive and Pio Pico Drive. The freeway and Carlsbad Village Drive generate high levels of noise (374 feet from the freeway centerline is at or above 75 dBA CNEL, based on Nolte & Associates Noise data, 1993). The car. wash as designed with a noise reduction package generates noise in the range of 68. 7 to 69 .0 dB A Leq during the drying cycle (measured at 50 feet from the entrance and exit of the car wash). Noise in the range of 75 dBA CNEL is equivalent to the noise generated by Carlsbad Village Drive and the I-5 freeway at this location. The addition of the noise from the car wash may result in an increase in noise levels on this site by less than 1 decibel which is insignificant, as it generally takes 3 decibels to perceive a change in a noise level. CUP 94-01 -SHELL OIL NOVEMBER 2, 1994 PAGE 10 • • The only sensitive land use in the area is the City-owned park located adjacent to the site (to the south) approximately 60 feet from the entrance of the car wash. As designed and conditioned, the noise generated by the car wash will be at or below the ambient noise levels at the southern property line of the site adjacent to the park The Parks Department was consulted regarding the proposed project and did not express concerns with the project as proposed. 4. A traffic study may be required for the proposed car wash. As discussed above in the general Conditional Use Permit findings and conditions, the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed project 5. 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 Pio Pico Drive. To improve circulation on the site, the northernmost and southernmost driveways along Pio Pico Drive will be removed and the one remaining driveway will be more centrally located. With the removal of the gasoline fueling island and canopy along Pio Pico Drive, adequate circulation will be provided on the site. Parking in accordance with the Carlsbad Municipal Code will be provided on the site. Nine parking spaces are required and ten spaces would be provided. 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 placement of (mounded) perimeter landscaping and the construction of a 3 foot high screen wall adjacent to the landscaped planter along Pio Pico Drive. A large landscaped planter will also be installed on the east side of the car wash. Further, the car wash entrance will be oriented to the south, away from nearby developments. All landscaping on the site will be conditioned to be maintained by the owner in a healthy and thriving condition. 7. All signs shall comply with an approved sign program. As discussed above under general Conditional Use Permit findings, the proposed sign program is in compliance with the sign ordinance. The applicant is requesting that the freeway-oriented pole sign height be allowed to remain at 45' above the freeway elevation which is supported by staff as discussed above. 8. Adequate means of eliminating grease and oils from drainage systems shall be provided CUP 94-01 -SHELL OIL. NOVEMBER 2, 1994 PAGE 11 • The project will be conditioned to comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The project will comply with the City's requirements of the NPDES permit by directing surface runoff through a three- compartment sand and oil interceptor that will reduce surface pollutants, such as grease and oils, prior to discharge into the storm drain system. This 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. C. GROWTH MANAGEMENT The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 1 in the northwest quadrant of the City. The impacts on public facilities created by this project and compliance with the adopted performance standards are summarized below: FACILITY IMPACTS COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS City Administration N/A N/A Library N/A N/A Waste Water Treatment 3EDU Yes Parks N/A N/A Drainage N/A N/A Circulation 1,240 ADT Yes Fire Station #1 Yes Open Space N/A N/A Schools N/A N/A Sewer Collection System 3EDU Yes Water Distribution System 660 GPO Yes IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The site has been previously disturbed with the development of an existing gas station and is devoid of any significant natural biological resources. The disturbed condition of the site also reduces potential cultural resources. The self-service car wash will increase noise levels on the site, but will not significantly impact surrounding uses or appreciably add to the ambient noise levels of the area. The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding land uses, and is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning of the site. The Negative Declaration was sent to the State Clearinghouse for State agency review and no comments were received. Based on field surveys by staff and findings of the initial study Part II, the Planning Director has determined that no significant environmental impacts will result from this project, and issued a Negative Declaration on September 2, 1994. · CUP 94-01 -SHELL OIL • NOVEMBER 2, 1994 PAGE 12 V. SUMMARY • The proposed project is (1) consistent with the General Plan and the C-1 Zone; (2) complies with the requirements of a conditional use permit for a service station (except 6' perimeter landscaping) and car wash in the C-1 Zone; is in conformance with the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan; and, satisfies the requirements for environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Therefore, staff recommends approval of CUP 94-01 based on the findings and subject to the conditions found in the attached resolutions. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3717 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3718 3. Location Map 4. Background Data Sheet 5. Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form 6. Disclosure Form 7. Exhibit "H", Southbound I-5 Freeway Sign 8. Exhibit "I", Landscape Planters 9. Reduced Exhibits 10. Full Size Exhibits "A" -"G", dated October 19, 1994. LAGUNA DR City of Cartaud SHELL OIL COMPANY CUP 94-01 • BACKGROUND DATA SHEET • CASE NO: CUP 94-01 ~~ ........... --=-=----------------------~ APPLICANT: Shell Oil/Tait & Associates REQUEST AND LOCATION: Gas Station/Convenience Store/Car Wash at the southwest comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and Pio Pico Drive. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Portion of Tract 115 of the Town of Carlsbad, according to Map 775, filed February 15, 1894 APN: 156-180-15, 25, 28, 30 (Assessor's Parcel Number) Acres .65 -=-="'-----Proposed No. of Lots/Units NIA GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation Travel/Recreation Commercial Density Allowed ~N~IA......_ ___ Density Proposed ~N~/A ____ _ Existing Zone .....:C:::...--=-1 _____ Proposed Zone .....:.N""'"/A::..=-__ _ Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad's Zoning Requirements) Site North South East West PUBLIC FACILITIES School District Carlsbad Zoning Land Use C-1 R-P-Q OS C-2 TC/VR Service Station Civic Center Park Offices, Restaurant Freeway/Service Station Water District Carlsbad Sewer District Carlsbad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) _..3 __________________ _ Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated ...:J-=ul:.,.y-=2=8..._,-=1.::-99"-4_,___ ____________ _ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ..X. Negative Declaration, issued ~S ..... e.._p=te=m=be~r =2,-----'19-"9-'"4 _____________ _ _ Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated --------------- Other, ____________________________ TW.:...a.:.=..:lli • CITY OF CARLSBAD • GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM (To be Submitted with Development Application) PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT: FILE NAME AND NO: -=S=h=el=l-=O .... il=---=C-=U-=-P-==9_,4....,-0a::...:1~------------------ LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: _1_ GENERALPLAN:~TR=-=-------~ DEVELOPER'SNAME:~S=h=el~l~O=il....,C=o=m=p=an=y------------------- ADDRESS: 511 N. Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, CA 92803 PHONE NO: 1-800-447-4355, Extension 1040 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO: 156-180-15, 26, 28, 30 QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): -"3=.2=0..;.8-=sg"""'u=a=re'-"fi=ee=t _____ _ ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE:-------------------- B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. mrmstrat1 ve Library: Demand in Square Footage= Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) Park: Demand in Acreage = Drainage: Demand in CFS = Identify Drainage Basin = (Identify master plan facilities on site plan) Circulation: Demand in ADTs = (Identify Trip Distribution on site plan) Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = Open Space: Acreage Provided - Schools: (Demands to be determined by staff) Sewer: Demand in EDU s - Identify Sub Basin - (Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan) Water: Demand in GPD - NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA 1,240 #1 NIA NIA 3 NIA 660 TW:lh CUP9401.Lf1 • • City of Carlsbad MM a;,;; .. , t-; •tY ·E; a;,, tA 111 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON AU. APPUCATIONS WHICH WIU. REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE Clrf COUNCIL. OR AI./V APPOINTED BOARD, COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE. (Pteue Prim) The following information must be disclosed: 1 . Applicant Ust the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application. SHELL OIL COMPANY 511 N BROOKHURST ANAHEIM, CA 92803 2. Owner Ust the names and addresses of aJI persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. SHELL OIL COMPANY 511 N BROOKHURST ANAHEIM, CA 92803 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, 11st the names and addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 4. If any person Identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, 11st the names and addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the trust. N/A FRM0001 12/91 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-:-:--:-=:-:=----:-:-::-:.-- 2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • • (Over) Disclosure Statement Page 2 5. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes _ No ..!..... If yes, please indicate person(s) __________________ _ f.!!!2!! ia defined u: 'Any Individual, firm, copa,tnet'shlp, joint venture, ueocladon, eoclal club, frcem.l o,genlzatlon. corporation, Ntate, tru.t. receive , syndicate, this and arry other county, city and county, city municipality, dlatriet or other political aubdivlaion, or arry other group or combination acting u II unit.' · (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.) Signature of Owner/date ' 7 ~~A·~~~, SHELL OIL COMPANY Print or type name of owner FRM0001 12/91 Prit -or type name of applicant MARK A. HAYDEN DIRECTOR, SAN DIEGO OFFICE EXHIBIT "H" SHELL FREEWAY SIGN VIEWED FROM 1-5 HEADING SOUTH PLANTER AREA #1 / ¥/ -~ (lo ;~<f> fl"' ~"' / < CARt.BBAD-VII.I.AOEfE-------·-· LANDSCAPE PLANTER LOCATIONS • • EXHIBIT "I" • • PLANNING COMMISSION November 2, 1994 PAGE9 PUBLIC HEARING: 3. CUP 94-01 -SHELL OIL-Request for approval of a Negative Declaration and an amendment of a Condi~ional Use Permit to accomplish the following actions: (1) to demolish existing fuel pumps and canopy; (2) to remodel the existing gas station service bays as a new combination convenience market and self-serve car wash; and (3) to permit a freeway oriented service sign to 45 ft. above the freeway, at the southwest corner of Carlsbad Village Drive and Pio Pico Drive, in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. Terri Woods, Associate Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the applicant is requesting approval-of an amendment to a CUP to ( 1) demolish an existing fuel pump and canopy, (2) remodel existing gas station service bays as a new combination convenience store and self-serve car wash, and (3) to permit a freeway. sign 45 ft. above the freeway. The site is located on the southwest corner of Carlsbad Village Drive and Pio Pico Drive, across the street from City Hall. The existing facility has four service bays, three that face Carlsbad Village Drive, and one that is double-loaded on the south side. It also has a small convenience store. The canopy and pumps adjacent to Pio Pico Drive are the ones being proposed for demolition in order to improve circulation on the site. There is a lot of signage on site, some of which is non-conforming. Landscaping currently does not extend around the entire site. The .65 acre site is zoned Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) and is located within a Travel Recreation General Plan designation. The current use is subject to CUP 157 which was approved for the service station with four service bays. The site is surrounded by a variety of uses, including City Hall to the north, offices and restaurants to the east. As proposed, the site would be upgraded with additional landscaping, improved architecture, ifl)proved circulation, and reduced signage on the site. The signage, as proposed, would be in conformance with our sign ordinance. The service station use is consistent with our General Plan which provides for commercial services to meet the needs of tourists, residents, and employees of our City. A CUP for a service station and car wash requires general findings as well as specific findings for the car wash and service station. The general CUP findings requires a determination that the project is necessary and desirable, it is adequate in size and shape, contains all necessary design features including architecture and landscaping, and that the project is consistent with the General Plan and the ordinance. · Staff feels that those findings can be made. The applicant is requesting, however, that the freeway pole sign be allowed to remain at 45 ft. above the freeway. This is something which can be permitted under the ordinance if the Planning Commission approves this height limit. The permitted height under the ordinance is 35 ft. and the Planning Commission does have the discretion to approve signs which are for freeway service facilities up to 50 ft. She showed slides of the approaching sign traveling north. The full view of the sign barely becomes clear at 45 ft. The face of this sign would be reduced. The existing face of the sign is 225 s. f. Our ordinance only permits 150 s.f. and the applicant is proposing to reduce it to 144 s.f. If the sign were lowered by any amount, visibility of the sign is lost. Therefore, staff does support the request for the sign height. Specific service station findings are also required for a use in the C-1 zone, including that the architecture and elevations are compatible with the neighborhood. If the project is located adjacent to residential or professionally zoned property, walls must be provided. This site is not located adjacent to professionally or residentially zoned property and therefore, walls are not required on this site. As conditioned, all exterior lighting will be shielded and directed downward and displays and storage will be contained inside the structure. All trash-containers will be screened with a 6 ft. screen wall as designed and conditioned, and the signs will be in conformance with the ordinance. All required public improvements will be provided as conditioned. · The last requirement is that the landscape plans comply with all City standards. This project does comply with all proposed City standards except that the applicant would like four of the perimeter planters to be approved with less than 6 ft. widths. The ordinance requires that the site have perimeter planters a minimum of 6 ft. wide. In order tcjreduce the standard, a variance must be obtained. Staff has looked at all four potential planter areas and has made a recommendation for each of them. The first perimeter planter area is located along Pio Pico Drive. The service station is an existing facility. It is not proposed to MINUTES • • PLANNING COMMISSION November 2, 1994 PAGE10 be demolished and it is not proposed to be expanded. If a 6 ft. planter area were required at this location, the car wash queuing lane would have to be narrowed and it would be unsafe for the driver as the turning radius would be too sharp. Therefore, staff does support the applicant. If a variance is applied for, staff feels they could make the necessary findings. The second planter area is 5 ft. wide and the third planter is 3 1 /2 ft. Both of these planter areas are reduced in size because the applicant would like to see additional parking on site. Additional parking is always a nice amenity to have but, in this case, staff has a standard which must be met. Therefore. staff does not support the applicant's request to have those reduced planter areas. Staff would not be able to make findings for a variance in this case because there are no extraordinary circumstances. The fourth planter area is located along Carlsbad Village Drive adjacent to the existing pumps. The City does not have a standard tor queuing areas for a fuel pump. Shell Oil, however, does have a standard which is 15 ft. Since the lane is 14 1/2 ft., they do not feel it is safe. Staff looked at the area in use and did not encounter any users having a problem entering or leaving the space. Staff does not recommend a variance for this planter area but believes it may be able to make findings for a variance. Nevertheless, it would have to go through the formal variance process. There are also specific findings required for a car wash. The site has been upgraded in its design and architecture. Additional landscaping has also been provided. The structures are architecturally compatible with the surrounding uses. The applicant did submit data on the car wash and the noise with respect to its use. The information provided showed that the noise would be approximately 69 decibels LEO at 50 ft. from the entrance or exit to the car wash. The noise on the site as it presently exists is 75 CNEL. It is difficult to add CNELs and LEO but if you assume both are constant, the increase on the site would be less than 1 decibel. One decibel is considered insignificant as the average individual cannot perceive the change of 1 decibel of noise. Traffic estimates were provided for the project. As proposed, with the demolition of the fuel pumps along Pio Pico, the traffic is estimated to decrease on the site over and above what it is from 1 ,560 to approximately 1 ,240 ADTs. Therefore, traffic is not a significant impact on this project. There will be adequate parking and circulation on the site, as designed, and there will be adequate parking with the elimination of the two parking spaces shown on the site plan. Nine spaces are required under ordinance and 1 O spaces would be provided with the reduction of the two spaces recommended by staff. Signs comply with the ordinance, if the Commission approves the additional height of the freeway sign. As conditioned, the project would have adequate means to eliminate oils and grease from the drainage system. She showed a slide of the proposed upgraded architecture for the project. It included the closing of the two driveways on Pio Pico and the moving of the one remaining driveway to improve circulation. It included the additional landscaping along the eastern side of the project, adjacent to the car wash. It included the new materials, i.e. a stucco-like finish along the front facia and a light grade textured material which would be on the sides of the walls. The stucco facia would also be on the new canopy. The existing canopy has a pitched roof. The proposed canopy is one that is currently being used by Shell Oil at most of its stations and has a flat roof. She indicated that adequate circulation is available on site and the landscaping is much more than most stations in the City. As regards the environmental review, this is a previously graded and developed site. There will be only an insignificant increase in noise caused by the car wash. The project is compatible with the surrounding area. Based on the initial study and staff's review, the Planning Director has issued a Negative Declaration on September 2, 1994. = Commissioner Erwin requested Ms. Woods to show again the landscape slide and reiterate her comments with respect to landscaping. · Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney, inquired if he is responding to staff's invitation regarding the potential for an administrative variance. ~mmissioner Erwin replied that staff has indicated that they have a problem with what is being requested by the applicant. He would like staff to provide direction as to what they would like to see done. MINUTES • • PLANNING COMMISSION November 2, 1994 PAGE 11 Mr. Rudolf replied that his caution would be not to inquire or give staff direction regarding the potential variance for the planting areas beeause it could be appealed to the Commission. Ms. Woods replied that staff must recommend 6 ft. planting areas around the entire site. However, after reviewing it, they may be able to make findings for an administrative variance along Pio Pico where the landscaping varies between 4 1 /2 and 5 ft. and in front of the fuel pumps along Carlsbad Village Drive. However, the applicant must submit an application and go through the process of an administrative variance. Commissioner Erwin inquired if they would lose one parking stall. Ms. Woods replied that is correct and it is possible that another stall may be sacrificed as well. It would leave 1 O parking spaces on site, which is above the 9 spaces required. · Commissioner Erwin inquired about the "average" 6 ft. landscaping. Ms. Woods replied that it is because certain areas of the landscaping are larger than 6 ft. and some are slightly smaller. Commissioner Erwin disclosed that he had spoken on the telephone with Mr. Nick Banche, who is representing the applicants on this project. Commissioner Welshons inquired if the reason for recommending the 45 ft. height of the freeway sign is due to natural vegetation, and will the tree tops be trimmed from time to time. Ms. Woods replied that t_he trees have been there a very long time. They may be trimmed on occasion, but they still continue to grow. Commissioner Welshons inquired if motorists traveling south on 1-5 can see the sign. Ms. Woods replied that you can see some of the sign southbound at 35 ft. However, traveling north, there are trees at Holiday Park and also all along the CalTrans right:-<>f-way. It severely restricts view of the sign. You need to be very close to the offramp in order to see the sign. Commissioner Welshans questioned the reduction in traffic on the site as a result of the removal of the gas islands. Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer, replied that ADTs are calculated based on the SANDAG standard and depend on the number of gas pumps. Even with the inclusion of the convenience store, we added to the calculation ancr still came up with a reduction in ADTs. Commissioner Welshans inquired how the car wash will conserve water. Ms. Woods replied that if cars are washed at home, the excess water runs into the storm drain. If they are washed at this car wash, the water is reused or recycled. Commissioner Welshans inquired about the statement that there are no full service car washes in Carlsbad. Ms. Woods replied that is correct. To her knowledge, there is only one other self service car wash on Palomar Airport Road. Commissioner Nielsen inquired if the car wash will be open all night. Ms. Woods replied Yes. Commissioner Nielsen inquired if the convenience store will sell beer and wine. Ms. Woods deferred response to the applicant. Chairman savary invited the applicant to speak. Nick Banche, 810 Mission Avenue, Oceanside, an attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that the Planning Director has advised him that the City has been looking for a renewal of this gas station for appmximately ten years. He agrees with the staff report and feels it was very thorough. He disclosed that he had discussed the application with every Planning Commissioner except Ms. Welshans. Mr. Banche stated that his major concern tonight are the landscape issues. It is critical that MINUTES • • PLANNING COMMISSION November 2, 1994 PAGE12 the planter along Carlsbad Village Drive not be expanded for safety reasons. · He requested the Commission's approval. Commissioner Monroy is aiso concerned about the safety issue. He would like to retain the existing width of the planter along Carlsbad Village Drive. Commissioner Noble stated that he had advised Mr. Banche that he would make his decision about retaining the width of the planter, based on the staff presentation tonight. Commissioner Erwin inquired if the applicant is willing to accept elimination of the two parking spaces. Mr. Banche replied Yes. Chairman Savary opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak. Susan Tague, Tate & Associates, 3665 Ruffin Road, San Diego, Project Designer, addressed the Commission and stated that she is also representing Mr. and Mrs. Franks and Shell Oil. As Mr. Banche stated, they will accept the Commission's decision regarding the landscaping. However, she wished to stress that the areas of concern are based primarily on safety issues. Although the parking areas are considered very important for employees and customers, they can accept elimination of the two spaces if necessary. Another approach would be to reduce the size of the two parking spaces by 12 inches. This would eliminate the pinch points in the planters. Staff has indicated they may be able to support an administrative variance at the queuing area to the car wash. She noted that the planting has been intensely upgraded and she hopes that this will be taken into consideration. Along Carlsbad Village Drive, if the existing planter is increased to 6 ft., it will create an unsafe and difficult maneuvering situation when you pull into the site because there are variations in grade and you must make an S turn to reach the pumps. Because the gas island is being removed along Pio Pico, it is expected that there will be an increase in usage of the pumps along Carlsbad Village Drive, which makes the safety issue even more critical. She would be happy to answer questions. Commissioner Welshans inquired if traffic will be directed to any specific entrance or exit. Ms. Tague replied there will be arrows but it also depends on which side a car's gas tank is located on. The site provides for two way traffic. Commissioner Erwin inquired if Shell Oil offers any other type of canopy than the box shape, based on requests by communities. Ms. Tague replied that the box-type canopy is based on the Silverado design. It · is an image being used by Shell and other stations as well. If there is a real problem with the canopy design, another design could be used but it would be site specific. Commissioner Nielsen inquired about beer and wine sales. Mr. Banche replied that this has not been discussed or considered. There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman Savary declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. Commissioner Erwin inquired if the CUP would have to come back for beer and wine sales. Ms. Woods replied that it would not have to come back before the Planning Commission because the convenience store is not a packaged liquor store. Commissioner Welshons inquired where the rest rooms are located. Ms. Woods replied that they are located outside, on the west side ~f the building adjacent to the freeway offramp. I Chairman Savary inquired about the pinching of the planters and the two parking spaces. The planter faces the embankment and offramp from 1-5. Is there any safety factor involved regarding the width of the MIN\JTES • • PLANNING COMMISSION November 2, 1994 PAGE13 planter at this point. She inquired if it is absolutely necessary to have a 6 ft. ~ide planter at these points. Ms. Woods replied that our zoning ordinance does not give staff discretion to vary or average the landscaping. According to the code, the planter areas must be 6 ft. wide. The only way to deviate is with a variance which requires four specific findings. Two of the findings are very difficult to make. One finding requires extraordinary circumstances. Parking spaces are not considered to be extraordinary. The other finding is that they are being denied a right that other people in the same zone are being able to enjoy. This applicant would not be denied a right because they are being allowed to have the car wash. As a result, this finding would be difficult to make as well. It would be easier to make the findings in the other planter areas. Commissioner Welshons has a major concern with the freeway sign. She sees no benefit leaving it at 45 ft. She would like the sign dropped to the 35 ft. levet. She inquired if tonight's approval would be for landscaping which meets the City standard and if the applicant would be required to return for a variance. Ms. Woods replied that any changes to the landscaping must be processed by an administrative variance. Approval tonight would be for the site design. Rich Rudolf, Assistant City Attorney, advised the Commission that they have the power to allow a freeway sign higher than 35 ft., which is the part of the project being presented. He referred to Finding #10 on page 4 of Resolution 3718. An administrative variance for the landscaping would be processed as a separate issue. Commissioner Welshans stated that she cannot make the finding to justify the 45 ft. sign height. If the City has an opportunity to bring something into compliance, she feels it should be done. Commissioner Noble stated that he travels extensively and many times he has needed a gas station late at night. If a motorist can't see a sign, it is useless. Commissioner Erwin inquired if every time we ~ove a·gas station we are approving the sale of beer and wine.-Ms. Woods replied that the sale of beer and wine is permitted at a convenience store. Staff is 1 currently looking into our existing codes and may recommend some changes in the near future regarding ttf(, sale of alcohol throughout the City. Commissioner Erwin is concerned that we are turning gas stations into liquor stores. Mr. Rudolf commented that liquor stores require an ABC license Which requires that the City Council be noticed. Commissioner Erwin inquired if the applicant could come back and ask for 4 administrative variances. Mr. Rudolf replied Yes. If they are denied, the applicant could appeal them to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Compas agrees with the comments made by Commissioner Noble. Commissioner Nielsen stated that he has mixed emotions about the 45 ft. sign but he does like being able to find a gas station at night. He inquired if the new smaller sign at 35 ft. could be seen by southbound motorists. Ms. Woods replied that a portion of the sign could be seen southbound. It would be totally obscured traveling northbound. Commissioner Erwin referred to Condition #1 of Resolution 3718. It states that approval is being granted per Exhibits A-G and Exhibit G shows the reduced landscaping. Ms. Woods replied that Condition #1 should be modified to read, " ... except as modified to provide the required 6 ft. minimum wide planter areas." This should clarify it and make it clear that we are requiring 6 ft. wide planter areas. Commissioner Erwin supports Cottmissioner Welshons on the sign because the trees will obscure it at either height. He would also like staff to come up with a design standard for future canopies so we don't always get these box-shaped designs. MINUTES • • PLANNING COMMISSION November 2, 1994 PAGE14 Commissioner Welshans made a motion, which was duly seconded to approve the project, deleting Finding #1 O and correcting Condition #1 . The motion failed 3-4. Those voting in favor of the motion were Commissioners Erwin, Nielsen, and Welshans. Those voting against the motion were Chairman Savary, Commissioners Compas, Monroy, and Noble. ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Motion was made by Commissioner Noble, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 3717, approving the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director, and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 3718, approving CUP 94-01, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, with the revision to Condition #1 regarding modification of the planter area as stated by Ms. Woods. 6-1 Chairman Savary, Commissioners Compas, Erwin, Monroy, Nielsen, and Noble Commissioner Welshons None 4. CUP 256x2 -POLICE FIRING RANGE -Request for approval of an extension of Conditional Use Permit 256 allowing the continued operation of the City's Police Department firing range facility located on a .88 acre site in the future Veterans Memorial Park. The facility is located in the OS Zone in Local Facilities Management Zone 8. Jeff GibSon, Associate Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the Police Department is requesting a five year extension of the CUP to continue their firing range operations. The site was chosen for safety reasons. The canyon site is isolated and surrounded by steep hillsides. The hillsides create a suitable barrier to prevent stray rounds and noise from exiting the area. The open space lands surrounding the site are vacant, except for agricultural fields located to the north. The firing range is oriented toward the south and away from the agricultural lands. The firing range is also located 3/4 mile to the east of the Carlsbad Ranch specific plan property. It is surrounded by a tall fence and 10-15 ft. high earthen berms are incorporated into the design of the facility. In addition, the range is oriented toward a steep hillside that acts as a further barrier. Veterans Memorial Park is still considered a future park and the firing range is still isolated from surrounding industrial and residential land uses. Veterans Memorial Park is still slated for future development, therefore, staff is also recommending that the CUP be reviewed by the Planning Director on an annual basis to determine its compatibility with other permitted land uses within the Veterans Memorial Park as the area develops. Police Sergeant Don Metcalf is the range master but was unable to attend this meeting. He requested that staff clarify that they do· not charge other police agencies to use the firing range. They do have one private contract with Southern California Edison (SCE) to use the range for the training of their security personnel. In return, see pays for ·au of the maintenance costs which include trash disposal, weed abatement and landscaping, portable toilets, and periodic maintenance of the road. The construction and maintenance of the fence was also paid by see. Staff recommends approval. Commissioner Noble inquired if the firing impacts into dirt or concrete. Mr. Gibson replied that firing goes into dirt. Commissioner Noble inquired what type of weapons are used. Mr. Gibson replied that they use all weapons legally used by the Police Department. Commissioner Noble stated that when there is a lot of firing into a specific dirt area, lead builds up. He hopes that cleaning out the area is also part of the maintenance. Commissioner Noble inquired what impact this firing range will have on the proposed future golf course. Mr. Gibson replied that this area has been planned as a park since the date the CUP was originally issued. The Police Department is fully aware of this. As the park develops, it would require that the facility be MINUTES . ;,l , .. ~,..,.~! -..r.,._.,.,,, . -----------11-------------11---------,..---11 ------+----11 ------ --------------''et,-·-· -C·A·R 6-S B-A-0-VII.L-AGs-E.---------- . lrfflmd. LEFT ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION ..... , ·,wo•,"• ~-- RIGHT l!Ll!V A TION REAR ELEVATION l•IITI tSOUfMI • SHELL OIL COMPANY HOUSTO,C, TVIAS ~"'~~•o ~ -l!t.•v•j\Pl6 1145 CAIIUIAD ~UG[ 1111. CAIILIIAD. CA.• '"" ... " , .•. , .. ....... ,-,,,,.,,....._ ___ -4 0• A·Z