HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-09-23; City Council; 8768; Appeal Conditional Use PermitCI1 OF CARLSBAD - AGEND. BILL
ARtf XJtoft'
MTG 9/23/86
DEPT. PT.N
TITLE' (APPEAL) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR ADDITION OF MINI-MART TO
EXISTING SERVICE STATION
CUP-286 - TEXACO
DEPT. HD*VC&
CITY ATTW^3
CITY MGR. '3$-'
O
O
O
r>OO
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Planning Commission and staff are recommending that the City Council direct
the Attorney's Office to prepare documents DENYING the applicants appeal on CUP-
286.
ITEM EXPLANATION
The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to add a
convenience store to an existing Texaco Service Station located at 945 Tamarack
Avenue. As proposed, the CUP would permit the conversion of the existing lube
bays to a 1,374 square foot convenience market. The CUP would also permit
exterior renovation of the building, new signage and the addition of planter
areas.
At the Planning Commission meeting the major issue was traffic. The Planning
Commission felt that the intersection of Pio Pico and Tamarack is already a
dangerous situation because of the close proximity of the on and off ramps from
northbound 1-5. The service station's driveways are basically located opposite
the point that Pio Pico "T's" into Tamarack, creating additional confusion.
They felt there was no reason to compound existing problems by the addition of
more traffic generators. In addition, the Commission felt that the Safeway
store located adjacent to the service station provided enough commercial
opportunities for this intersection.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Director has determined that this project will not cause any
significant environmental impacts and, therefore, has issued a Negative
Declaration, dated May 10, 1986. A copy of the environmental documents is on
file in the Planning Department.
FISCAL IMPACT
The increased need for city capital facilities resulting from this development
will be offset by the payment of the public facilities fee. Any capital
facilities related directly to this development will be constructed and paid for
by the developer.
Increased operating expenses related to this development will be offset to some
extent from increased tax or fee revenue generated by the development. No
detailed economic impact analysis of this development has been conducted at this
time so predictions of the portion of operating expenses covered by additional
operating revenue created as a result of this project cannot be made.
EXHIBITS
1) Location Map
2) Planning Commission Resolution No. 2575
3) Staff Report, Planning Commission, dated August 13, 1986/w Attachments
LOCATION MAP
\
LOCATION
TEXACO CUP-286
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
25
26
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2575
A RESOLUTION OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION OP THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
ALLOW AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SERVICE STATION OF A
CONVENIENCE STORE ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 945
TAMARACK AVENUE.
APPLICANT: TEXACO
CASE NO; CUP-286
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
as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code,
the Planning Commission did, on the 13th day of August, 1986, hold
a duly noticed public hearing to consider said application on
property described as:
A portion of Tract 237 of Thum Lands, in the County of
San Diego, according to Map thereof No. 1681,
15
WHEREAS, at said hearing, upon hearing and considering all
16
testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be
17
18
19
20
21
22
heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to CUP-286.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
(A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
(B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the
Commission DENIES CUP-286, based on the following findings
and subject to the following conditions:
23
Findings;
24
1) The proposed use would increase traffic and compound existing
problems at the intersection of Tamarack Avenue and Pio Pico.
2) There are presently enough retail commercial facilities
located at this intersection to adequately service the area.
27
28
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on
the 13th day of August, 1986, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairman Schlehuber, Commissioners: McBane,
Marcus, McFadden, Schramm & Holmes.
NOES: Commissioner Hall.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
CLARENCE SCHLEHUBER, Chairman
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
11
PLANNING DIRECTOR V
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 PC RESO NO. 2575 -2-
STAFF REPORT
DATE: AUGUST 13', 1986
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: CUP-286 - TEXACO - The addition to an existing service
station facility of a convenience store at 945 Tamarack
Avenue.
I .RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission APPROVE the Negative Declaration
issued by the Planning Director and ADOPT Resolution No. 2575
APPROVING CUP-286 based on the findings contained therein.
II.PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit
to convert an existing service station facility at 945 Tamarack
Avenue into a convenience store and retail gasoline outlet. The
site is surrounded by a shopping center to the east and south,
1-5 to the west, and another gas station to the north. The plan
includes conversion of the existing lubrication bay, exterior
renovation of the building, enlargement of the canopy, addition
of planter areas, and new signage. Total food mart area is
1,374 square feet. The applicant is providing seven parking
spaces.
III.ANALYSIS
Planning Issues
1 ) Can the four findings required for approval of a conditional
use permit, be made? Specifically:
a) That the requested use is necessary or desirable for
the development of the community; is essentially in
harmony with various elements and objectives of the
General Plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses
or to uses specifically permitted in the zone in which
the proposed use is to be located;
b) That the site for the intended use is adequate in size
and shape to accommodate the use;
c) That all of the yards, setbacks, wall, fences,
landscaping and other features necessary to adjust the
requested use to existing or permitted future uses in
the neighborhood will be provided and maintained;
d) That the street system serving the proposed use is
adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by
the proposed use.
2) Does the proposed project comply with the development
standards required for approval of a conditional use permit
for an automobile service station? (See Exhibit "X " for
details.)
DISCUSSION
The required use is necessary for the development of the
community. The service station facility provides an essential
service adjacent to a major interstate freeway allowing
transient vehicles to minimally impact the neighborhood
surrounding this commercial area while providing a convenience
for this same neighborhood. This site is adequate in size and
shape to accommodate the proposed use. The site is large enough
to accommodate all of the required parking onsite and still
provide for substantial landscape areas. As the site is
adjacent to a freeway and otherwise surrounded by commercial
development, there is no necessity to adjust the use to other
uses in the neighborhood; it is already compatible. Engineering
staff believes the proposed site design provides for safe and
adequate traffic circulation The attached traffic impact study
presents existing traffic conditions, the anticipated traffic
generation of the proposed expansion project, an analysis of the
development as it would affect existing roadway characteristics,
and descriptions of the necessary mitigation measures that are
the conditions of approval for this project.
Review of the project indicates substantial conformance to the
minimum requirements of a service station facility (Exhibit "X")
with the exception of planter areas and proposed signage. The
proposed perimeter planter areas have a minimum width of four
feet. The proposed signage exceeds the amount allowable under
existing ordinance. Staff has conditioned the approval of this
project to meet the minimum requirements. As conditioned, staff
believes that the use is appropriate for the site, consistent
with the zoning and General Plan, and compatible with
surrounding uses. Staff further believes that all of the
findings necessary for approval of a conditional use permit can
be made.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Director has determined that this project will not
have a significant impact on the environment and, therefore,
issued a Negative Declaration on May 10, 1986.
-2-
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2575
2. Location Map
3. Background Data Sheet
4. Disclosure Form
5. Exhibits "A" - "E", dated February 7, 1986
6. Texaco Expansion Traffic Impact Study, September 1985
7. Exhibit "X", dated April 3, 1986
BWH:ad
7/3/86
-3-
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: CUP-286
APPLICANT: Texaco
REQUEST AND LOCATION: The addition to an existing service station facility of
a convenience store at 945 Tamarack Avenue
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A portion of Tract 237 of Thum Lands, in the County of San
Diego, according to Map thereof No. 1681 APN; 206-050-20
Acres .39 Proposed No. of Lots/Units
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation Neighborhood Commercial
Density Allowed NA Density Proposed NA
Existing Zone Cl Proposed Zone Cl
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
Zoning Land Use
Site Cl Neighborhood Commercial
North Cl Travel Service
South Cl Neighborhood Commercial
East Cl Neighborhood Commercial
West 1-5 1-5
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District Carlsbad Water Carlsbad Sewer Carlsbad EDU's
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated December 3, 1985
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
X Negative Declaration, issued May 10, 1986
E.I.R. Certified, dated
Other,
TEXACO EXF-AJSTS ION
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
Prepared for
the City of Carlsbad
Prepared by
BSI Consultants, Inc.
San D i ego, Cn 1 i fo rn i a
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE
INTRODUCTION 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1
EXISTING STREET NETWORK 1
PUBLIC TRANSIT 5
TRAFFIC FORECASTING METHODOLOGY 5
TRAFFIC GENERATION 5
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT 7
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 7
Existing Conditions 9
Existing Plus Project 10
INTERSECTION MITIGATION MEASURES 10
ROADWAY LINK ANALYSIS 11
ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION 11
APPENDIX
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1. KEY PROJECT INTERSECTIONS 1
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBITPAGE
1
2
3 .
4
5.
VICINITY MAP
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
SITE PLAN
PROJECT TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENTS
PROPOSED ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
9
3
4
8
12
INTRODUCTION
This report was prepared to evaluate traffic and circulation
impacts associated with the proposed expansion of the Texaco
service station located at the intersection of Tamarack Avenue and
Pio Pico Drive in the City of Carlsbad. The project is located
east of Interstate 5 and west of Adams Street on Tamarack Avenue,
as shown in Exhibit 1. The project site is convenient to the
Interstate 5 Freeway, with local access provided by Tamarack
Avenue and Pio Pico Drive. Exhibit 2 illustrates the existing
peak hour traffic volumes along these facilities.
A visual inspection was made of the project area as well as the
streets and highways which would serve the site. Peak hour counts
were performed by BSI Consultants, Inc. while existing traffic
data and other daily traffic volume information were obtained from
the City of Carlsbad.
In addition to the preparation of a traffic generation forecast
for the project, existing and future peak period levels of service
were evaluated at four key intersections by means of the Critical
Movement Analysis method. Street improvements needed to support
the various analysis scenarios were also identified. Table 1
identifies the key intersections studied.
Table 1
Key Project Area Intersections
1. Tamarack Avenue and Interstate 5 northbound
2. Tamarack Avenue and Interstate 5 southbound
3. Tamarack Avenue and Pio Pico Drive
4. Tamarack Avenue and Highland Drive
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
As currently proposed, the expansion of the Texaco station would
consist of adding a mini market to the existing development. The
new services at this location would include a small convenience
market selling such items as soft drinks, cold sandwiches, snacks,
and other items. A site plan is illustrated in Exhibit 3.
EXISTING STREET NETWORK
The Interstate 5 freeway provides regional access to the site. It
is located west of the project area and is aligned in a northwest-
southeast direction. It currently services traffic volumes at the
Tamarack interchange area at the average of 96,000 vehicles per
day (VPD).1 The subject 96,000 VPD consumes approximately 83
percent of the freeway capacity at level of service LOS D
operation (considered most appropriate for freeway analysis).
1 1983 Traffic
Transportstion
Volumes, State of California, Department of
-1-
i X-sLJJ
I I B JUI»IP*H»TC™« | | —•
/ \ I —- | I I *
TAMARACK SHORES HEMLOCK »vt. \ >l | . fri I 1 I 3
\ \ | BtOWOpO *Vt || >
( TAMARACK 1 itS
Exhibit 1 - VICINITY MAP
TEXACO STATION EXPANSION
-2-
to
UJ
COcctil UJ
3
ZUJ
Q
Z
Za
Oftwoo
TAMARACK AVENUE
57-Jt
419—>
74 ~*
itr
!u> CM
PROJECT SITE
xxx EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
NOTE:
1. nom. LESS THAN 5 VEHICLES (NOMINAL)
2. VOLUMES PER SPECIFIC INTERSECTION PEAK HOURS
SCHEMATIC
NOT TO SCALE
Exhibit 2 - EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
TEXACO STATION EXPANSION
-3-/3
ai
3
Z
111
o<
DC
J
^TPirn— — SJ-.J U>, -»l
=rp J °
!?1 -9 »
. !• 5
or
\
1
«i*->
i;
Exhibit 3 - SITE PLAN
TEXACO STATION EXPANSION
-4-
In the project area, Tamarack Avenue runs in an east-west
direction and currently services an estimated 14,500 VPD. It is
classified by the City of Carlsbad as a Secondary Arterial between
Jefferson Street and Adams Street, implying a 64 foot curb to curb
pavement width within an 84 foot right-of-way. The existing VPD
uses an estimated 73 percent of the 20,000 VPD LOS C capacity.
Pio Pico Drive is classified as a local street. Existing daily
traffic volumes along this facility are on the order of 3,600 VPD.
This represents 72 percent utilization of the 5,000 VPD documented
as "environmental capacity" for local streets.
PUBLIC TRANSIT
The North County Transit District (NCTD) provides transit service
to the City. Route 322 operates in the vicinity of the site at the
intersection of Tamarack Avenue and Pio Pico Drive. There are
approximately one hour headways at this stop, with two buses an
hour.
TRAFFIC FORECASTING METHODOLOGY
The process of estimating the vehicular traffic resulting from a
particular land use is referred to as travel demand forecasting.
This includes trip generation, trip distribution, and trip
assignment. (Mode split was not used for the subject analysis in
view of the proposed development type.)
Trip generation is concerned with the prediction of the number of
trips per specified time period made to and from a given
development. The traffic generation potential for the proposed
Texaco Mini-Mart is expressed in "vehicle trip ends", where a trip
end is a one-way vehicular movement either entering or departing
the given land use. Each vehicle trip has two ends - one at its
origin and one at its destination. It is noted that when the
traffic generated by a particular site would have external travel
orientations, the number of vehicles added to the street system
would exactly equal the number of trip ends produced.
TRAFFIC GENERATION
In this case, the traffic generation potential for the site has
been developed from three sources. These include information
published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), and
information developed from two independent studies of similar
developments. The generation values should be considered as
conservative in that a worst case type of analysis was used to
estimate traffic generation of the site.
-5-
In the development of the generation forecast for the proposed
expansion, it was recognized that all of the traffic generated
from the site would have destinations external to the project, and
the overall traffic generation forecast would be made up of three
primary components (i.e., not all of the site-related traffic
would be new to the street system).
The three trip making components mentioned above include trips
that are already being made to the existing service station, trips
that will be new to the site but linked to a stop for gasoline
(i.e. the added attraction of the mini-mart creates new stop-off
business), and new trips that would be specifically directed to
the convenience shopping portion of the site (new trips to the
street system) and independent of the purchase of gasoline.
Because the service station is already in operation, many of the
trips that would be "generated" by the site are already on the
street system. For example, area residents are already using this
location to obtain gasoline. Similarly, given the location of the
station near the freeway, much of the stations business is already
attributable to freeway travelers. Also, once the project is
completed, there will be some new patrons to the site who will
stop for two purposes - one to obtain gasoline and another to shop
in the market.
As clarification, prior to expansion a person returning home from
work could stop and fill up with gas and then continue home.
Subsequent to the completion of the project however, the same stop
could be linked to a visit into the mini-mart. The same reasoning
could be applied to freeway travelers. Under these conditions, the
"traffic generation" of the site would be overstated unless
appropriate adjustments were made.
To evaluate the extent of new trips to area roadways (specific or
linked trips) and hence, the necessary adjustments described
above, the results of two independent studies of similar
developments were reviewed and compared to values published by
ITE. The first study was developed in the City of Santa Ana for
another Texaco site; the second was conducted in the City of Yorba
Linda.
Results of the studies indicate the trips that were directed only
to the convenience areas of the service stations were quite small
(i.e., new trips). In comparison to total arriving traffic at
these locations, values of 23 percent and 16 percent were
respectively calculated for the Santa Ana and the Yorba Linda
locations. The greatest utilization of both locations was for
gasoline, as evidenced by percentages of 56 percent in Santa Ana
and 66 percent in Yorba Linda. Finally, the dual utilization of
the sites for both gas and the convenience market (i.e., linked
trip) were respectively found to be 10 percent and 16 percent.
-6-
Premised upon the above-referenced information, it is estimated
that 300 new trips would be generated by the proposed Carlsbad
project on a daily basis (150 inbound and 150 outbound). During
the critical afternoon peak hour, the above studies indicated that
a nominal total of 30 vehicle trips (i.e., 10 percent of VPD)
would be generated. Based on ITE-documentat ion, the peak hour
trips would be evenly distributed into 15 inbound and 15 outbound
trip ends.
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
Traffic distribution and assignment, as the final stages of the
travel demand forecast process, involves determination of the
directional orientation of trips generated to and from the
proposed development. In this case, the distribution of generated
vehicle trips was based on several sources. These include a
review of the proposed operational characteristics of the site, a
review of the existing street and highway system, and an analysis
of the site's location and access points relative to the adjacent
street and freeway interchange system.
The primary consideration in the distribution analysis concerned
the fact that it is doubtful that many of the new trips generated
by the project would use the freeway. The primary distribution
would therefore occur over surface streets and given the location
of the residential and commercial developments in the area, most
of the trips would occur via Tamarack Avenue east of the site.
On that basis, it is estimated that approximately 10 percent of
project traffic would be oriented to and from the north and south
along Interstate 5. Another 20 percent would use Pio Pico Drive
with 40 percent traveling to and from the east along Tamarack
Avenue (east of the freeway). The remaining 20 percent would
arrive and depart along Tamarack Avenue from areas west of the
freeway. Exhibit 4 presents project traffic assignments to area
roadways.
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
The overall traffic analysis for the Texaco station on Tamarack
Avenue consists of two parts. These include an evaluation of
intersection operation and an evaluation of the effect of project
traffic on raidblock conditions (also called roadway "links"). The
intersection evaluation incorporates the affects of geometry and
signal operation (or non-signal operation) while the roadway link
analysis compares individual and/or cumulative traffic volumes to
the theoretical carrying capacity of a roadway.
The impact of project and other traffic volumes on key intersec-
tions described in Table 1 was quantified via the Critical
Movement Analysis (CMA) techniques for signalized and unsignalized
intersect ions.
-7-
/7
(10%) (20%)
I10
4"*. ho
U>
UJt-
Ul
(20%)
(10%)
UJ
Z
UJ
<
Q
Z
Xo
(40%)
TAMARACK AVENUE
KEY
xx .
xxx
PM PK HR VOLS
DAILY VOLS
SCHEMATIC
NOT TO SCALE
Exhibit 4 - PROJECT TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENTS
TEXACO STATION EXPANSION
-8-
Level of service is a relative measure of driver satisfaction
which ranges from LOS A (free flowing traffic conditions) to LOS F
(forced flow). LOS D is traditionally considered the minimum
acceptable level for peak hour conditions in urbanized or
developing areas. 'At that level and assuming that an intersection
is signalized, most traffic clears on the first available green
phase, but short accumulations of vehicles may occur. For the
purposes of this study, LOS C was considered as the limiting
criteria. The same general reasoning applies to unsignalized
intersections except that contrary to the signalized intersection
approach which looks at the intersection as a whole, the
unsignalized intersection approach looks at each individual
approach to the intersection.
CMA calculations at the key project intersections have been
performed for existing conditions, and for existing plus project
condi t ions.
Existing Conditions
The following information presents a summary of the Critical
Movement Analysis for the key .intersections. It is noted that
because the intersection of Tamarack Avenue and Pio Pico Drive is
signalized, a separate method was used for this intersection
(signalized intersection analysis) than was used for the other
three intersections described in Table 1 (unsignalized
intersection analysis).
Tamarack Avenue and Interstate 5 northbound on and off ramps are
controlled by a one-way stop sign on the northbound off ramp. The
northbound right turns were found to be operating at LOS C,
indicating that this approach is experiencing average and/or
acceptable delays. Northbound left turns, however, were
determined to operate at LOS E; this means that at peak hour there
is congestion and/or unacceptable traffic delays for the subject
movement. The eastbound left turns are at LOS A and have little or
no delay.
Tamarack Avenue and Interstate 5 southbound on and off ramps are
also controlled by a one-way stop sign on the off ramp. The
southbound right turns have little or no delay at peak hour as
shown by a LOS A condition. For southbound left turns however,
congestion occurs as is characterized by a calculated service
level E condition.
Tamarack Avenue and Highland Avenue is a four-way stop controlled
intersection and was found to be operating at service level A. It
is noted that this intersection is also comparatively distant from
the Texaco station and would have little effect on any traffic
congestion which may occur at other locations.
_ Q_
Tamarack Avenue and Pio Pico Drive is a signalized intersection. A
high level of service A was calculated for existing conditions at
this location.
Existing Plus Project
In view of the minimal 300 VPD and 30 peak hour trip ends
forecasted to be generated by full development and occupancy of
the project site, the overall impact in this case will be light.
Indeed, based on a review of projected volumes as shown in Exhibit
4 and a recalculation of CMA's for the respective intersection
locations, the previously developed intersection service levels
will remain in their pre-project condition. It is therefore
apparent that the contribution of project traffic to area
intersection conditions will be negligible.
INTERSECTION MITIGATION MEASURES
Although the previous analysis indicates that additional
intersection measures are not required as part of project
development, the results of the CMA data indicates that
signalization may be required at the Tamarack Avenue intersections
with the northbound and southbound freeway ramps. Although
directional traffic count information is unavailable for a precise
traffic signal warrant analysis, a generalized review of recent
two-way counts and turning volumes were employed for this purpose.
The existing two-way traffic volume along Tamarack Avenue is on
the order of 14,000 vehicles per day. Assuming an equal split in
the eastbound and the westbound directions and combining these
volumes with daily traffic volumes using the ramps, it appears
that the Minimum Vehicular Warrant as prescribed by the State may
be satisfied. Since only one of several warrants need to be
satisfied, this information would strongly suggest that both of
the Tamarack Avenue freeway intersections should be signalized. It
is noted that if this were to be done, the resulting intersection
service levels at both locations would fall well within the
minimum acceptable service level C condition.
Although not associated with the impact of project traffic,
another recommendation relative to upgrading intersection
operation concerns the Tamarack intersection with Pio Pico. In
this case, our field review indicated that for northbound traffic
exiting the Texaco service station, a non-standard signal
indication is used to control the various outbound movements.
Instead of the normal sequence of green-yellow-red, this
indication displays yellow-yellow-red. Since this could lead to
driver confusion, longer vehicular delays, and an increased
accident potential, the initial yellow ball should be changed to
green.
-10-
ROADWAY LINK ANALYSIS
While the CMA technique provides a reliable estimate as to
projected intersection operation, another procedure is commonly
used as a supplement to the overall analysis and includes a review
of existing and future 24 hour volume totals (daily volumes) along
the roadway approaches to the various intersections (also called
roadway "links"). Based on projected volume levels, typical
roadway capacities, and other information relating to intersection
capacity and vehicular storage requirements, the combined
evaluation provides an estimate as to the number of lanes that
will be required to service future traffic.
Similar to the Critical Movement Analysis, the evaluation in this
regard has been organized in terms of existing traffic and the
added increment. of traffic produced from the expansion of the
Texaco station. Volume to Capacity (V/C) ratios were then
calculated based on a typical two lane carrying capacity of 5,000
vehicles per day as well as 20,000 vehicles per day for a four
lane facility.
The limiting value for these relationships is a V/C ratio of 1.0
(100 percent). When this value is reached, the demand volume or
usage on a particular roadway has theoretically reached its design
capacity. This is based on assumed peak hour service level
conditions. When the V/C ratio is 1.0 or greater, additional
improvements, such as extra lanes, signal interconnect, and/or
minimum driveway spacing should be implemented.
As indicated below, both the existing roadway link condition and
the existing plus project condition fall well within acceptable
limits. Currently, Tamarack Avenue is operating at a V/C ratio of
0.73 (14,500 vpd/20,000 vpd) while Pio Pico is operating at a V/C
ratio of 0.72 (3,600 vpd/5,000 vpd).
With the addition of project traffic, near imperceptible increases
in the respective ratios are expected. Along Tamarack Avenue, the
project will add a maximum daily volume tabulation of about 120
vehicles per day, maintaining the V/C ratio of 0.73. Along Pio
Pico, the impact of about 60 vehicles per day will be
imperceptible as shown by a calculated V/C ratio of 0.73. Since
both of these values fall well within the limiting value of 1.00,
no additional improvements to area roadways are required due to
the impact of project traffic.
ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION
Field review of the site noted relatively minor problems which may
easily be mitigated prior to the completion of the project. The
first problem, as previously discussed, concerns a green signal
indication that is missing from the traffic signal which controls
all traffic leaving the gas station by its easterly exit. However,
since this is within the responsibility of signal maintenance, the
implementation and responsibility of corrective measures should
not be directed toward the development.
-11-
For the existing intersection channelization, it is recommended
that moderate striping modifications be completed along the Pio
Pico approach to Tamarack Avenue into the project. The reason for
this is that the curvature of existing striping channels
southbound traffic to the west. Inasmuch as prohibitions are not
in affect for southbound left turns or through maneuvers, this
current striping condition creates a confusing situation for
traffic destined for the east or traffic which would continue
south into the project site.
Due to the width of the Pio Pico approach, adequate mitigation for
this condition would be available through the creation of two
southbound approach lanes. One lane could be used for southbound
through and left turns while the other lane could be used for
right turns only. A suggested configuration for this concept is
presented in Exhibit 5.
The extent of on-site improvements recommended for the project are
minor. To ensure that certain existing problems are not allowed
to continue, and also to ensure that on-site circulation is
enhanced, consideration should be given to the modification of the
site's westerly driveway to produce right turn in and right turn
out movements only. This can be accomplished by installing a "No
Left Turn" sign for vehicles leaving the gas station at the
westerly exit. Although a potential still exists for left turns
into the site at this location, it is doubtful that this would
occur given the location of the traffic signal and hence, the
opportunity for easier entrance into the project from that point
as compared with the westerly driveway.
These improvements will result in better utilization of the
traffic signal, the potential for accidents at the western drive
at the gas station will be reduced, and area safety will be
enhanced since all outbound left turns will be made at the
eastern-most signalized driveway. These improvements are shown in
Exhibit 5.
-12-
1-5
NORTHBOUNDX
ON-RAMP
TAMARACK AVENUE
1-5
.NORTHBOUND
OFF-RAMP
• — ^ —^ 1
j
± 1 i Install R17 -
' / No Left Turn Sign
y I / For Project Site
[/ Driveway
:-— n n m \ 1 n~
—
—
—
tii
*.1
Vjro
-Si-
PROJECT SITE
KEY
EXISTING STRIPING
PROPOSED STRIPING
• PROPOSED NO LEFT TURN SIGN
Exhibit 5 - PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
TEXACO STATION EXPANSION
-13-
that further information is required, you will be so advised.
APPLICANT:
AGENT:
MEMBERS:
TEXACO REFINING & .MARKETING INC .
Name (individual, partnership, joint venture, corporation, syndication)
10 UNIVERSAL CITY PLAZA. UNIVERSAL CITY. CA 90051-1756
Business Address
(818) 505-2420
Telephone Number
FRED FIEDLER & ASSOCIATES
Name
2322 W. 3RD ST., LOS ANGELES, CA 90057-1906
Business Address
(213) 381-7891 _.
Telephone Number
Name -(individual, partner, joint
venture, corporation, syndication)
Home Address
Business Address
Telephone Nunber Telephone Number
Home Address
Business Address
Telephone Ncaber Telephone li
(Attach more sheets if necessary)
I/We declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained in this dis
closure is true and correct and that it will remain true and correct and may be'
relied upon as being true and correct until amended.
Owner, Partnef
Section 21.42.010(7)(B) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
(B) In the event a permit is granted for an automobile service
station, the following standards of development therefore
shall be required as conditions of such granting:
(i) Planning Department approval of architectural
elevations to ensure that the use will harmonize with
the neighborhood.
(ii) Approval by the Planning Department of landscape
plans consisting of at least the following:
(I) Perimeter planter areas of a minimum of six feet
in width and planter areas adjacent to the
structure.
(II) Six-inch concrete curb bounding all planter
areas.
(Ill) Landscaping including a combination of flowers,
shrubs, and trees.
(IV) A sprinkler system providing total and effective
coverage to all landscaped areas.
(V) A statement delineating a maintenance schedule
and responsibility for maintenance of landscaped
areas.
(iii) A six-foot high masonry wall shall be constructed on
all sides of the subject property which adjoins
residential or professional zoned property.
(iv) All exterior lighting shall be shielded or oriented
in such way so as not to glare on adjacent
properties.
(v) All displays and storage shall be contained within the
main structure.
(vi) Trash containers shall be contained within a six-foot
high enclosure.
(vii) All signs shall be in conformance with the City's
sign ordinance.
(viii) Full public improvements as may be required for
public convenience and necessity.
EXHIBIT "X"
APRIL 3, 1986
WILLIAM H. TEER ARCHITECT
21BO Fletcher Parkway
El Cajon, CaliF. 92020
May 8, 198B
CITY OF CARL33AO
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, "aliF. 92008 Re; CUP # 286
Honerable Mayor And Council Members,
This letter is written on behalf oF my clients Mr. Tom Lin
and partners. The purpose of which is to address a matter that
we Feel has been handled in an irregular manner.
I would like to review the sequence of events relative to our
submission of plans For the approval oF a Motel Project on Pio
Pico and Magnolia Avenue and seek your resoonse.
OCTOBER '85
We made an initial visit to the City Planning Oept. to veriFy
the zoning oF the property, its permitted uses and other usual
particulars. We were assured that, the zone being R-3 , Motels
were permitted and were issued a copy oF Chapter 21 . 1 6 which
aFFirms the same. We speciFically asked iF any Public Hearing
was necessary and was assured that it was not. And that a Site
Plan Review by the staFF was the only Formallity involved. On
the strength oF such assurance my client, Mr. Lin, moved For-
ward to acquire the property to speciFically develoo a Motel
Pro j ect .
During this month I submitted three studies which were review-
ed by the staFF . One oF which they chose as oreFerrable and
made some handwritten notes having to do with sideyards and
setbacks. I corrected these items and re-submitted the Site Plan
along with diagrammatic plans and exterior elevations which
were again reviewed by the staFF.
NOVEMBER "85
This time the staFF asked For some revisions in the landscape
area and suggested that an "In and Out" driveway From Dio pico
was not Favored and that an "In Only" driveway was preFerrable.
I again revised the olans and re-submitted. Some time passed
and seeking a resoonse was inFormed by Mr. Hunter that an "Ur-
gency Ordinance had oeen passed and now a Conditional Use Per-
mit was required. It was explained to me that this action was
brought about because oF concerns by the neighbors.
MARCH 'SB
''Je preoared all oF the necessary documents, oaid the Fees, and
re-submitted. '/</e also met with some oF the immediate neighbors
who were quite suoportive oF the project. During this time
lapse I had conversation with Mr Hunter about the progress oF
the review and at no time was there a hint oF other impending
action by the Council . I was told that, From the date oF Sub-
mission, that I would have the staFF comments [Submission date
aoorox . March 17 3 would be available in aoorox. ten days.
On aoorox imately April 28 I recieved comments From the Planner
Project Engineer inForming me oF other deFeciencies most
Page P of
Also enclosed were copies oF Agenda 3ill dated Feb, 25, '86
and cooy of Ordinance S98QO which was adopted Mar. 4 ' 86 and
became effective Mar. 4, ' RR and , if understood correctly,
prohibits Motels in R-3 Zone.
We began in Oct. '85 submitting Site Plans and other information
for approval and were doled out one or two comments at a time.
After about four submittals we were required to apply for a CUP.
The application was made in mid March and knowledge of Ordinance
reached me in late Aoril well after the effective date of such
Ordinance «9ROO. . . --
I submit that our aool icat ions for Site Plan Review were mis-
handled in that we never recieved a formal list of comments at
any one time creating a great time laose. Severe financial dam-
ages are the result of these delays as the orooerty was ac-
quired based on the original information supnlied in October ; R5 .
It is now my understanding that this orooerty may be considered
for re-zoning to some Commercial nlassif ication and slated to be
discussed later in June. vle simply do not have any consistant
information and , hopefully, it is not un-fair tp ask your re-
sponse in this matter and thank you in advance for your cooo-
eration and consideration.
illiam H. eer
I ?jm enclosing ^ cooy o^ the Escrow Tostructions and
cooy of the Escrow Settlement with evidence of dates
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFOKNIA 92008
438-5621
275.
REC'D FROM.DATE.
ACCOUNT NO.DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
RECEIPT NO. 6 A ' 1 1 b TOTAL
<s(Di»,ENDING CORKED REGULAREARNINGS O.T.
EARN;EARW FEDWITH.F,rAf ' c A
NETPAY NAME
DATE GROSS OTHER DEDUCTIONS DISCOUNT DESCRIPTION CHECK
AMOUNT
.PAY PERIOD FROM.-TO.
PAYEE'S RECORD OF EARNINGS OR PAYMENTS
FRED FIEDLER AND ASSOCIATES
2322 W. 3RD STREET 381-7891 LOS ANGELES, CA 90057 1702S
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1989
Office of the City C/erff
TELEPHONE
(619) 438-5535
Citj> of Carlsbab
TO:Bobbie Hoder. Administrative Asst II.
FROM:Karen Kundtz, Deputy City Clerk
DATE: August 22, 1986
RE:CUP 286 - Texaco
The above item has been appealed to the City Council. Please determine
when the item will go to Council and complete the form below and return
it to the City Clerk's Office. According to the Municipal Code,
appeals must be heard by the City Council within 30 days of the date
that the appeal was filed. Please consider this when setting the
date for the hearing.
Thank you.
The appeal of the above matter should be scheduled for the City
Council Meeting of ?//£ .
Signature Date
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Office of the City Clerk
€itp of Cartebab
APPEAL FORM
LE
(714)438-5535
I (We) appeal the following decision of the
Planning Commission to the city Council.
Project name and number (or subject of appeal):
CUP-286-Texaco
Date of decision; August 13, 1986
Reason for appeal; Planning Commission ignored Planning Department
staff recommendations tavoring approval. Denial was predicate!!
on anticipated traffic congestion e'nvi-sioned by Planning Commission
.members which is totally contradictory; to the traffic forecasting
methology and traffic generation stipulated on Pages 5 and 6 of the
traffic impact study prepared by the highly accredited traffic
consultant firm of BSI Consultants. Inc. of San Diego.
Signature
David Mattson
Name (Please print)
Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc.
10 Universal City Plaza, 4th Floor
Address
Universal City, California 91608-1097
818/505-2420
Telephone Number
Carlsbad Journal
Decreed a Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County
3138 ROOSEVELT ST. • P.O. BOX 248 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 • 729-2345
Proof of Publication
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid;
I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter.
I am principal clerk of the printer of the CdNsbad JOUITOl a newspaper of general circulation,
published twice weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, and which
newspaper is published for the dissemination of local news and intelligence of a general character, and
which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying
subscribers, and which newspaper has been established and published at regular intervals in the said
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding one year
next preceding the date of publication of the
notice hereinafter referred to; and that the notice
of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been
published in each regular and entire issue of said
newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on
the following dates, to-wit:
*202-
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING
APPEAL
CUP-286
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that
the City Council of the City of Carls-
bad will hold a public hearing at
the City Council Chambers, 1200
Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California,
at 6:00 P.M., on Tuesday. September
23.1986, to consider an appeal of a
Planning Commission denial of an
application for an addition, to an
existing service station facility, of a
convenience store on property lo-
cated on 945 Tamarack Avenue and
more particularly described as:
A portion of Tract 237
Lands, in the County of San Diego,
according to Map thereof No. 1681.
If you have any questions regard-
ing this matter, please call the
Planning Department at 438-1161.
If you challenge the ConditionalUse Permit in court, you may be
limited to raising only those issues
you or someone else raised at the
public hearing described in this'
notice, or in written correspon-
dence delivered to the City of Carls-
bad at or prior to the public
hearing.
Appellant: Texaco
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
CJ 4309: September 13. 1986
September 13, 1986
19,
19
19,
19
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
and correct. Executed at Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
State of California on the 13th
day of Rppt.F-mhe-r, 1986
Clerk of the Printer*
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPEAL
CUP-286
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public
hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 P.M.,
on Tuesday, September 23, 1986, to consider an appeal of a Planning Commission denial of
an application for an addition,to an existing service station facility, of a convenience
store on property located on 945 Tamarack Avenue and more particularly described as:
A portion of Tract 237 of Thum Lands, in the County of San
Diego, according to Map thereof No. 1681.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call the Planning Department
at 438-1161.
If you challenge the Conditional Use Permit in court, you may be limited to raising
only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to
the public hearing.
APPELLANT: Texaco
PUBLISH: September 13, 1986 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
TEXACO CUP-286
£/
*L/^ OL^2J^-f^^ ^jLoJu^^
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will
hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad,
California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 13, 1986, to consider approval of
an addition to an existing service station facility of a convenience store on
property located on 945 Tamarack Avenue and more particularly described as:
A portion of Tract 237 of Thum Lands, in the County of San Diego,
according to Map thereof No. 1681.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend
the public hearing. If you have any questions please call the Planning
Department at 438-5591.
If you challenge the Conditional Use Permit in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of
Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: CUP-286
APPLICANT: TEXACO
PUBLISH: August 2, 1986
CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
OWNERSHIP LIST WITHIN 300' OF
.945 TAMARACK AVE., CARLSB,
205-270-36,37 1
Forest Fisher
1417 Antigua Wy
Newport Beach, cA 92660
205-270-44
Diocese of San Diego Ed &
P O Box 80428
San Diego, CA 92138
2
W.
206-050-16 3
Dayton Corp, Cons
C/0 Safeway StoresP O Box 3399 Terminal Annx
Los Angeles, CA 90051
206-050-17 4
Thorras Hinds
9720 Wilshire Blvd, S. #204
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
206-050-18
Carlsvalley Assoc., Cons
P O Box 92333Worldway Postal Center
Los Angeles, CA 90009
206-050-20 6
Heltibridle C J, MMNS 1/2
Geil L. & Harriet, HWJT 1/2
P 0 Box 599
Oceanside, CA 92054
206-050-23 7
Voodridge Carlsbad LTDC/0 First Pacific Properties
3251 Holiday Court #202
La Jolla, CA 92037
206-050-21 8Wakeham Derrick & Selnna, HWJTSattler J M TR, NSNS 32.22X17952 Athens AVe.
Villa Park, CA 92667
206-050-22Parker Oakley, MMNS
3215 Maezel Land
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Fred Fiedler & Assoc.
2322 W. Third St.
Los Angeles, CA 90057
Attn: Patrick Fiedler
Appellant:
David Mattson
Texaco Refining, Inc.
10 Universal City Plaz
Fourth Floor
Universal City, CA
91608-1097
Robert Vargo
Westcoast Mapping
4431 W. Rosecrans #500
Hawthorne, CA 90250
.OCCUPANT WITHIN 300' OF
45 TAMARACK AVE. , CARLSBA,-
Occupant Occupant Occupant
970 Tamarack AVe 981 Tamarack AVe. 977 Tamarack AVe.
Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant Occupant Occupant
973 Tamarack Ave. 969 Tamarack Ave. 959 Tamarack AVe.
Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant Occupant Occupant
985 Tamarack Ave. 3969 Adams Ave. # 101 3969 Adams Ave. #102
Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant Occupant Occupant
3969 Adams AVe. #103 3969 Adams Ave. #104 3969 Adams Ave. #105
Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant Occupant Occupant
3969 Adams AVe. # 106 3969 Adams Ave. #107 3969 Adams AVe. #108
Carlsbad, cA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant Occupant Occupant
3969 Adams Ave. #109 3969 Adams AVe. #110 3969 Adams AVe. #111
Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant Occupant Occupant
3969 Adams AVe. #112 3969 Adams Ave. #113 3969 Adams AVe. #114
Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, <CA 92008
Occupant Occupant Occupant
3969 Adams AVe. #115 3969 Adams Ave. #116 3969 Adams AVe. #117
Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant Occupant Occupant
3969 Adams AVe. #118 3969 Adams Ave. #119 3969 Adams AVe. #201
Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008
Page 2
Occupant Occupant Occupant
3969 Adams Ave. # 202 ' 3969 Adams AVe. #203 3969 Adams AVe. #204
Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant Occupant Occupant
3969 Adams Ave. #205 3969 Adams Ave. #206 3969 Adams Ave. #207
Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant Occupant Occupant
3969 Adams Ave. 208 3969 Adams AVe. #209 3969 Adams Ave. #210
Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant Occupant Occupant
3969 Adams Ave. #211 3969 Adams AVe. #212 3969 Adams AVe. #213
Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant Occupant Occupant
3969 Adams AVe. #214 3969 Adams Ave. #215 3969 Adams Ave. #216
Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant Occupant Occupant
3969 Adams Ave. #217 3969 Adams AVe.#218 3969 Adams Ave. #219
Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant Occupant Occupant
3969 Adams Ave. # 120 3969 Adams AVe. #121 3969 Adams AVe. #122
Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant Occupant Occupant
3969 Adams AVe. #123 3969 Adams AVe. #124 3969 Adams AVe. #125
Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant Occupant Occupant
3969 Adams AVe. #126 3969 Adams Ave. #127 3969 Adams AVe. #128
Carlsbad, CA 92008 CArlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008
Page 3
Occupant Occupant Occupant
3969 Mams AVe. #129 3969 Adams Ave. #130 3969 Adams AVe.#131
Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant Occupant Occupant
3969 Adams Ave. #132 3969 Adams AVe. #133 3969 Adams Ave. #134
Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant Occupant Occupant
3969 Adams Ave.#135 3969 Adams AVe. #136 3969 Adams Ave. # 137
Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant Occupant Occupant
3969 Adams AVe. #138 3969 Adams Ave. #139 3969 Adams Ave. #220
Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant Occupant Occupant
3969 Adams Ave.#221 3969 Adams Ave.#221 3969 Adams Ave. #222
Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant Occupant Occupant
3969 Adams Ave. #223 3969 Adams Ave. #224 3969 Adams Ave. #225
Carlsbad, iCA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008 CArlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant Occupant Occupant
3969 Adams AVe. #226 3969 Adams Ave. #227 3969 Adams AVe.#228
Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant Occupant Occupant
3969 Adams Ave. #229 3969 Adams AVe.#230 3969 Adams Ave. # 231
Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant Occupant Occupant
1060 Chinquapin Ave. #1 1060 Chinquapin Ave. #2 1060 Chinquapin Ave. #3
Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad, CA 92008
Page 4
Occupant
1060 Chinquapin Ave. f 4
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1060 Chinquapin Ave. #5
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1060 Chinquapin Ave. #6
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1060 Chinquapin AVe. #7
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1060 Chinquapin Ave. #8
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1060 Chinquapin AVe. #9
Carlsbad,c CA 92008
Occupant
1060 Chinquapin AVe. 10
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1060 Chinquapin #11
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1060 Chinquapin #12
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1060 Chinquapin Ave. #13
CArlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1060 Chinquapin #14
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1060 Chinquapin #15
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1060 Chinquapin 16
CArlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1060 Chinquapin #17
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1060 Chinquapin #18
CArlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1060 Chinquapin AVe. #19
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1060 Chinquapin AVe. #20
CArlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1060 Chinquapin AVe. #21
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1060 Chinquapin Ave. #22
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1060 Chinquapin AVe. #23
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1060 Chinquapin Ave. #24
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1060 Chinquapin Ave. #25
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1060 Chinquapin Ave. #26
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1050 Chinquapin AVe. #1
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1050 Chinquapin AVe. #2
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1050 Chinquapin Ave. #3
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1050 Chinquapin AVe. #4
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Page 5
Occupant
1050 Chinquapin Ave. #5
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1050 Chinquapin Ave. 16
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1050 Chinquapin Ave. #7
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1050 Chinquapin Ave. 8
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1050 Chinaquapin Ave. #9
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1050 Chinquapin Ave. 10
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1050 Chinquapin Av.e 11
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1050 Chinquapin Ave. 12
CArlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1050 Chinquapin Ave. 13
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1050 Chinquapin Ave. 14
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1050 Chinquapin Ave.15
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1050 Chinquapin Ave. #1
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1050 Chinquapin Ave. #17
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1050 Chinquapin Ave. #18
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
.1050 Chinquapin Ave.#19
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1050 Chinquapin AVe.#20
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1050 Chinquapin Ave. #21
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1050 Chinquapin Ave.#22
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1050 Chinquapin Ave.#23
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1050 Chinquapin AVe. #24
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1000 Chinquapin AVe. #2
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1000 Chinquapin Ave.#A2
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1000 Chinquapin AVe. #A3
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1000 Chinquapin Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1000 Chinquapin AVe. #A5
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1000 Chinquapin Ave.#A6
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1000 Chinquapin AVe. #1
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Page 6
Occupant
1000 Chinquapin Ave. #B2
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1000 Chinquapin AVe. #B3
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1000 Chinquapin AVe.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1000 Chinquapin AVe. #B5
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1000 Chinquapin AVe. #B6
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1000 Chinquapin Ave. #B'
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1000 Chinquapin AVe. #B8
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1000 chinquapin Ave. #A7
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Occupant
1000 Chinquapin Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
^s>'.£
#>/&
. 1200 ELM AVENUE MV^^5/M TELEPHOr
CAflLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 M A*' . Fl ' " (714)438-5535
0///ce o/ the' City Clerk
Citp of Carlsftab
APPEAL FORM
I (We) appeal the following decision of the
Planning Commission to the city council:
Project name and number (or subject of appeal) :__
CUP-286-Texaco
Date of decision; August 13, 1986
Reason for appeal; Planning Commission ignored Planning Department
staff recommendations favoring approval. Denial was predicate!!
on anticipated traffic congestion envisioned by Planning Commission
members which is totally contradictory; to the traffic forecasting
methology and traffic generation stipulated on Pages 5 and ,6 of the
traffic impact study prepared by the highly accredited traffic
consultant firm of BSI Consultants. Inc. of San Diego.
Signature
David Mattson
Name(Please print);
Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc.
101 Universal City Plaza, 4th Floor
Address
Universal City, California 91608-1097
818/505-2420
Telephone Number T~
FRED FIEDLER AND ASSOCIATES
TO:
ATTENTION:
2322 WST THIRD STREET
LOS A. ^LES, CALIFORNIA 90057-1906
PHONE: (213) 381-7891
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
DATE
REGARDING
WE ARE TRANSMITTING
D Per your request
D As requested
by
^Enclosed
D Under separate cover VIA:
FOR YOUR
D Approval
D Revision & Comments
D Use
D Distribution
Information/Files
THE FOLLOWING
D Prints
D Sepias
D Originals
D Other
ACTION
D Approve
D Approve & Return
D Approve as corrected
D Approve corrections
and return
D Correct & return
COPIES DATE OR NO.DESCRIPTION
Zt- 0C
REMARKS:
ARMANDO MORALES
AU6 21 1986
COPIES TO:
FR
1290 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1989
Office of the City Clerk
TELEPHONE
(619) 438-5535
Cit? of Cartebab
TO:Bobbie Hoder, Administrative Asst II.
FROM:Karen Kundtz, Deputy City Clerk
DATE: August 22, 1986
RE:CUP 286 - Texaco
The above item has been appealed to the City Council. Please determine
when the item will go to Council and complete the form below and return
it to the City Clerk's Office. According to the Municipal Code,
appeals must be heard by the City Council within 30 days of the date
that the appeal was filed. Please consider this when setting the
date for the hearing.
Thank you.
The appeal of the above matter should be scheduled for the City
Council Meeting of .
Signature Date