1995-07-20
OLD ENCINITAS COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
8 Action Minutes
PLACE OF MEETING: CITY HALL
CO UN CIL CHAMBERS
505 S. Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, California 92024
Thursday, July 20, 1995, 7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
Community Advisory Board Members Present:
Adam Birnbaum, JefITey Davis, Joyane Harden
Community Advisory Board Members Absent:
None
Staff Members Present:
Tom Curriden, Senior Planner
8 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS / PROCLAMATIONS
None
CLOSING AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR
I. Approval of Minutes: Regular Meeting of June 22, 1995.
Contact Person: Senior Planner Curriden.
2. Approval of a Final Parcel Map as in confonnance with Tentative Parcel Map application 94-194
TPM. Contact Person: Senior Planner Curriden.
."
3. Public Hearing on a Coastal Development Permit request for a proposed auto service center to
include a convenience store, gas station, full service car wash, two auto repair service buildings, ~d
associated corporate offices. A Major Use Permit (Case # 93-175 MUPÆIA) was approved bfý the
City Council on March 15, 1995. CASE NUMBER: 95-128 CDP; APPLICANT: 350 Encinitas
Partnership; LOCATION: 350 Encinitas Blvd.; ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Negative
Declaration certified by the City Council on March 15, 1995.
8 4. Public Hearing for a Design Review permit to allow exterior modifications to a portion of the existing
Moonlight Plaza commercial center located in Downtown Encinitas Specific Plan area. CASE
8 NUMBER: 95-040 DR; APPLICANT: Jourdain LOCATION: 345 First St. ENVIRONMENTAL
ST A TUS: Exempt under Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
NOTE: Continuance requested by applicant to the next regularly scheduled meeting of August 24,
1995.
5. Public Hearing for Minor Use Pennit and Coastal Development Pennit for an automobile rental
business located in the General Commercial Zone. CASE NUMBER: 95-100 MIN/CDP;
APPLICANT: Tom Billick LOCATION: 310 No. Highway 101; ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
Exempt under Section 15061 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
NOTE: Continuance requested by applicant to the next regularly scheduled meeting of August 24,
1995.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Consent Calendar (1) Approving the Minutes of June
22, 1995; (2) Approving the Final Parcel Map pursuant to Tentative Parcel Map 94-194 TPM, thus
authorizing recordation of the Final Parcel Map after the mandatory 10 calendar day appeal; (3)
Approving the Coastal Development Pennit Case # 95-128 CDP for previously approved Major Use
Pennit and Environmental Initial Assessment application Case # 93-175 MUPÆIA; and (4)
Approving continuances at the request of the applicants for Cases # 95-040DR and 95-100
MIN/CDP.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Consent Calendar Approving the Minutes of May 18,
1995.
8 Motion: Board Member Harden - To adopt consent calendar approving agenda items 1, 2, 4,
and 5, but pulling item 3 from the agenda to hear at the end of the Public Hearings portion of
the agenda.
Second: Board Member Birnbaum
Vote: Ayes - Boardmembers Birnbaum, Davis, and Harden
Nays - None
Absent - None
Abstain - None
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR BY THE PUBLIC
None
ORAL COMMUNICA nONS (15 MINUTES)
None
REGULAR AGENDA
8 6. Public Hearing for a Major Use Pennit Modification and Coastal Development Pennit for a proposed
addition of an approx. 1,760 sq. ft. Sunday school addition to an existing church facility.
8 CASE NUMBER: 95-152 MUPMOD/CDP; APPLICANT: First Church of Christ
Scientist; LOCATION: 520 Balour; ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS: Categorically exempt under Section 15301 (e 1.) of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Disclose any infoIl11ation received outside the hearing upon which
the decision is based, receive public testimony, and adopt the draft resolution recommending approval
of Case # 95-152 MUPMOD/CDP to the Planning Commission.
Motion: Board Member Birnbaum - Recommend that the Planning Commission adopt
the Resolution of Approval with the conditions and findings presented with Condition # 8
modified to read as follows:
8. In the event it is deemed necessary by the appropriate City agency, an
easement or other acceptable agreement for storm water and sewer line facilities will
be required to serve the properties east of the site.
Second: Board Member Harden
Vote: Ayes - Boardmembers Birnbaum, Davis, Harden
Nays - None
Absent - None
8 Abstain - None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Disclose any infoIl11ation received outside the hearing upon which
the decision is based, receive public testimony, and adopt the draft resolution recommending approval
of Case # 95-152 MUPMOD/CDP to the Planning Commission.
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR BY A BOARD MEMBER
3. Public Hearing on a Coastal Development Pennit request for a proposed auto service center to
include a convenience store, gas station, full service car wash, two auto repair service buildings, and
associated corporate offices. A Major Use Pennit (Case # 93-175 MUPÆIA) was approved by the
City Council on March 15, 1995. CASE NUMBER: 95-128 CDP; APPLICANT: 350 Encinitas
Partnership; LOCATION: 350 Encinitas Blvd.; ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Negative
Declaration certified by the City Council on March 15, 1995.
Motion: Board Member Birnbaum - To Direct staff to prepare a draft resolution of
Planning Commission denial with findings for denial as specified in Attachment "A" hereto.
Second: Board Member Harden
Vote: Ayes - Boardmembers Birnbaum, Davis, Harden
8 Nays - None
Absent - None
Abstain - None
8 COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARDIDIRECTOR REPORTS
Review City Council actions and Planning Commission actions since the Board's last meeting of June
22, 1995. Contact Person: Senior Planner Cuniden
BUSINESS
None
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting to be adjourned to the next regularly scheduled meeting to be held Thursday, August 24,
1995.
Motion: Board Member Birnbaum - To adjourn the meeting at 8:05 P.M. to the next
regularly scheduled meeting of this Community Advisory Board to be held August 24,1995.
Second: Board Member Harden
Vote: Ayes - Boardmembers Birnbaum, Davis, and Harden
8 Nays - None
Absent - None
Abstain - None
8
8 A'ITACHMENT "A" TO MINUTES OF JULY 20, 1995
OLD ENCINITAS CAB MEETING
1. The proposed development is consistent with the Local Coastal program of the City
of Encinitas; and
Facts: The application involves a Coastal Development Permit pursuant to a
previously issued Major Use Permit application and Environmental Review for a
proposed 20,149 square foot auto service center on a 2.37 acre site to include a
convenience store, gas station, full service car wash, auto repair/service buildings and
associated corporate offices with enclosed parking. The site plan proposes an upper
and lower/street level. The lower/street level will include the gas station,
convenience store/mini market, and car wash. The gas station proposes a total of
16 fueling stations and a canopy area of 5,750 square feet. The mini market is
proposed at 3,230 square feet and includes retail area, storage, office and rest rooms.
The upper level of the site will include the corporate offices and enclosed parking
and the two auto non-intensive repair/service buildings. The corporate offices are
proposed at 4,590 square feet and are located above a 2,544 square foot parking
facility, a public lobby and patio area and a portion of the southerly auto service
building. The most southerly auto repair/service building is proposed at 2600
8 square feet and is connected to the underground parking facility of the corporate
office by a public lobby and patio. The second auto service building is proposed at
3,220 square feet and is located at the northwesterly corner of the project site. The
project is designed with only one 42 foot wide driveway for regular vehicular traffic
with direct access to Encinitas Blvd.
Discussion: Section 30.74.040 of the Municipal Code requires that (in the case of
Use Permits) the authorized agency find:
"The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed project will
not be compatible with and will adversely affect and will be materially detrimental
to adjacent uses, residences, buildings, structures or natural resources, with
consideration given to, but not limited to:
The suitability of the site for the type and intensity of use or development which is
proposed;..."
The suitability of the site, and the type and intensity of the proposed project is not
compatible with the surrounding uses, especially with the adjacent residential
development, absent appropriate mitigation, such as sound attenuation walls and
mature landscape buffer, neither of which is proposed. The 2.37 acre site is located
8 on the north side of Encinitas Blvd. just east of the Calle Magdalena intersection.
Encinitas Blvd. is a highly congested road and based on the project traffic report
8 maintains a Level of Service F on the segment east of Interstate 5 (1-5), with the
Encinitas Blvdjl-5 northbound ramp intersection maintaining a Level of Service E.
The project traffic report states that the project was calculated to generate 2,620
average daily trips (ADT), the report assumed that about 20% of the project-
generated trips will be primary trips (newly generated) and about 80% will be pass-by
or trips that are diverted less than one mile. However, since the traffic report does
not take into consideration the total uses upon the site (corporate offices), it appears
that the project will create more ADTs than the 2620 indicated in the project traffic
report and a higher percentage of new trips than the 20% associated with general
service station uses.
A traffic letter report was prepared for the project to address on-site circulation and
how it may affect off-site traffic, the letter report was based on the project design
which included only the 42-foot wide drive for normal vehicular traffic. Although the
report showed that on-site queues are not expected to affect off-site traffic on
Encinitas Blvd., on-site traffic could cause conflicts. Based on a survey of the
westbound traffic on Encinitas Blvd. at the Calle Magdalena traffic signal the report
states that at peak hour (4:30-5:30 PM) there will only be 98 gaps available for the
133 anticipated vehicles to exit from the site onto Encinitas Blvd. This will greatly
affect on-site circulation in that vehicles will be backing up waiting to exit which
eventually can block the area in front of the gas pumps, car wash, and driveway to
the second level. The additional driveway proposed at the southwesterly corner of
8 the project site was added to the project to try and mitigate the on-site circulation.
However, no additional traffic data has been submitted to show that the additional
driveway which does not provide direct access to Encinitas Blvd. will sufficiently
mitigate the on-site circulation.
Given the proposed intensity of uses on the site, the location of the site for the
proposed use is not suitable due to the fact that the site is located off of Encinitas
Blvd., just east of the 1-5 northbound ramp, the Saxony intersection and the Calle
Magdalena intersection and directly adjacent to a residential development. The
combination of all uses, the gas station, the car wash, convenience store, office
building and auto service building are too intense for the 2.37 acre site. Additionally,
the project is split into two levels due to the existing topography which intensifies the
uses. Due to the split level design the operations of the car wash, gas station and
convenience store are limited to the first level which occupies approximately 60,000
square feet or approximately 58% of the subject site. Therefore the on-site
circulation is concentrated and further impacted.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that the project is inconsistent with the
City's adopted Local Coastal Program because the evidence does not warrant making
the required findings set forth in Section 30.74.030 of the Municipal Code,
specifically because the location, size, design and characteristics of the center are not
compatible with and will adversely affect adjacent uses, or residences for the reasons
8 described in the "Discussion" segment above.
8 2. The proposed development conforms with Public Resources Code Section 21000 and
following that there are no feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives
available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impact that the
activity may have on the environment.
Facts: The application involves a Coastal Development Permit pursuant to a
previously issued Major Use Permit application and Environmental Review for a
proposed 20,149 square foot auto service center on a 2.37 acre site to include a
convenience store, gas station, full service car wash, auto repair/service buildings and
associated corporate offices with enclosed parking. The site plan proposes an upper
and lower/street level. The lower/street level will include the gas station,
convenience store/mini market, and car wash. The gas station proposes a total of
16 fueling stations and a canopy area of 5,750 square feet. The mini market is
proposed at 3,230 square feet and includes retail area, storage, office and rest rooms.
The upper level of the site will include the corporate offices and enclosed parking
and the two auto non-intensive repair/service buildings. The corporate offices are
proposed at 4,590 square feet and are located above a 2,544 square foot parking
facility, a public lobby and patio area and a portion of the southerly auto service
building. The most southerly auto repair/service building is proposed at 2600
square feet and is connected to the underground parking facility of the corporate
office by a public lobby and patio. The second auto service building is proposed at
3,220 square feet and is located at the northwesterly corner of the project site. The
8 project is designed with only one 42 foot wide driveway for regular vehicular traffic
with direct access to Encinitas Blvd.
Discussion: There is an alternative available which would significantly lessen the
significant adverse environmental impacts associated with the proposed project
design; that being a project composed or less intensive uses and a less intensive
combination of uses which would not generate the level of traffic impact to adjacent
streets or internal circulation that are generated by this project. Also, a project
composed of less intensive uses or a less intensive combination of uses would not
generate the level of noise requiring mitigation to the adjoining residential properties
as that generated by the proposed project.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission finds that the proposed development does
not conform with Public Resources Code Section 21000 and following in that there
are feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives available which would
substantially lessen any significant adverse impact that the activity may have on the
envIronment.
8