HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-01-16; City Council; 13471; Kooter's Barbeque AppealCl’= OF CARLSBAD - AGEP4 BILL
APPEAL - KOOTER’S BARBEQUE
CUP 95-10
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
DEPT. HD. d&f@
That the City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare documents DENYING the
Appeal and UPHOLDING the Planning Commission’s DENIAL of CUP 95-10.
ITEM EXPLANATION
This CUP application is for the construction of a drive-through facility for a proposed
restaurant. The project site is an existing building at the northern end of the Carlsbad
Plaza Shopping Center located on the east side of El Camino Real south of Haymar
Drive. The applicant proposes to construct a drive-through facility onto the existing 8000
square foot building.
Staff reviewed the proposed plan and recommended denial of the project because of
traffic circulation and parking problems. At the public hearing on November 15, 1995,
the Planning Commission voted 5-l (Erwin) to deny the application. (Commissioner
Nielsen was absent.)
The proposed drive-thru facility does not comply with the City’s Engineering policy
requiring a minimum queuing distance and requiring that the queuing area be clear of
parking stalls and traffic aisles. The Engineering policy requires a minimum queuing
distance of 3 standard vehicle lengths between the pick-up window and the order board,
and 5 standard vehicle lengths beyond the order board (a total of 8 vehicle lengths).
The smallest queuing distance previously permitted in the City (for a low volume drive
.thru) was a distance of 2 and 4 (a total of 8) vehicle lengths. The applicant’s proposal
does not comply with either the standard, or the reduced, queuing requirement. The
proposed facility can only accommodate 2 and 3 (a total of 5) vehicle lengths before the
queue encroaches into the parking lot, blocking both traffic circulation and access to
parking stalls.
The proposed project would also result in a loss of existing parking on the site. The
approved site plan for the shopping center currently shows parking spaces where the
proposed drive-through facility structure would be located. These spaces would, of
course, be eliminated. In addition, the parking stalls which would be blocked by the
queue would need to be removed, resulting in a further reduction in the total number
of spaces available in the center. Since the north end of the shopping center contains
uses that generate a high parking demand, loss of any parking at this location could
create parking problems.
Finally, it is important to note that a CUP goes with the land. Therefore, even if the
proposed restaurant were a low-volume user of the drive-through facility, future users
of the facility might not be low-volume users. If the applicant were to vacate the
building, another user with a higher-volume demand for the drive-through could occupy
the building, creating a severe circulation and parking problem on the site.
P6GE 2’OF AGENDA BILL NO. 13, Lf 3 (
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Negative Declaration was issued for this project on October 13, 1995.
FISCAL IMPACT
Denial of the drive-thru portion of the project would not preclude development of the site
as a restaurant, therefore, no direct fiscal impacts will result from denial of this appeal.
EXHIBITS
1. Location Map
2. Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3337 and 3838
3. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated November 15, 1995
4. Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated November 15, 1995.
-- --
KOOTER’S BARBECUE
CUP 95-10
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
/
- ExHBK2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3837
A RESOLUTION OF THE P LANNING COMMISSION OF
THE ClTY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW A DRIVE-
THROUGH FACILITY ON AN EXISTING BUILDING ON
THE EAST SIDE OF EL CAMINO REAL SOUTH OF
HAYMAR DRIVE. CASE NAME KOOTER’S BARBECUE
CASE NO: CUP 95-10
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of November,
1995, 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 Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according to
Exhibit “ND”, dated October 13, 1995, and “PII”, dated October 2, 1995,
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findims:
1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have
a significant impact on the environment.
2. The site has been previously graded pursuant to an earlier environmental analysis.
3. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed project.
4. 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
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
h -
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of November,
1995, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Welshons, Commissioners Compas, Monroy, Noble
and Savary
NOES: Commissioner Envin
ABsENTz Commissioner Nielsen
ABSTAM None
m4 WELSHONS, Chairperson
CARLSBADPLANNIN G COMMXSION
AlTESTZ
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 3837 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
-
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3838
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNIN G COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A DRIVE-
THROUGH FACILITY ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF EL CAMINO REAL
SOUTH OF HAYMAR DRIVE.
CASE NAME: KOOTER’S BARBECUE
CASE NO: CUP 95-10
WHEREAS, Fancher Development Services has filed a verified application
with the City of Carlsbad which has been referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Conditional
Use Permit as provided by Chapter 21.42 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning
Commission did, on the 15th day of November, 1995, hold a duly noticed public hearing to
consider said application on property described as:
Parcels 1 and 3 of Parcel Map No. 4?338, being a portion of
Lots 4 and 5 of Fractional Section 32, Township 11 south,
Range 4 west, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, recorded
June 18,1976.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all
factors relating to CUP 95-10.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
DENIES Conditional Use Permit, CUP 95-10, based on the following findings:
.
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
Findims
1.
2.
3.
4.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
The requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community,
is essentially in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the general plan,
but IS detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the zone in
which the proposed use is to be located because the drive-through facility would not
comply with Engineering policies requiring minimum queuing distance and would
block required parking spaces belonging to all occupants of the center in common.
The site for the intended use is NOT adequate in size and shape to accommodate the
use because the site with the existing building cannot accommodate the proposed
drive-through lane without violating the City’s Engineering policy requiring the
provision of adequate queuing distance and access to parking spaces and traffic
d&!S.
All of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to
adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood
WILL NOT be provided and maintained because the project would not provide
adequate internal circulation and the minimum queuing distance necessary for the
drive-through and would not maintain the accessibility of ail existing parking spaces.
The street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic
generated by the proposed use because the surrounding streets were designed to
accommodate the traffic generated by the shopping center when at full occupancy.
PC PESO NO. 3838 -2-
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
- -
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of November,
1995, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Welshons, Commissioners Compas, Monroy, Noble
and Savary
NOES: Commissioner Envin
ABSENT: Commissioner Nielsen
ABSTAIN: None
KIM *LSHONS, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNIN G COMMISSION
ATTEST
Planning Director/
PC RESO NO. 3838 -3-
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: South side of Haymar Drive East of Good Guys.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a drivethrough lane on an existing 6,000
square foot building in an existing shopping center.
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, Carisbad, California 92009. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within
20 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Elaine Blackburn in
the Planning Department at (619) 436-l 161, extension 4471.
DATED: OCTOBER 13, 1995
CASE NO: CUP 95-10
CASE NAME: KOOTERS BARBECUE
PUBLISH DATE: OCTOBER 13,1995
Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Drive l Carlsbad, California 92009-l 576 l (619) 438-l 161 @ 4
- A.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) ,
CASE NO. CUP 95-10
DATE: October 2. 1995
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Kooter’s Barbecue
2. APPLICANT: Fancher Development Services
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1342 Bell Avenue. Suite 3K. Tustin. CA 92680
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: July 2 1. 1995
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a drive-through lane on an existing 6.000 sauare foot building for
a restaurant use
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 2 Noise - Recreation
- Mandatory Findings of Signilicance
Rev. 3/28p5
1.n
- .
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the kad Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I fmd that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the envirdunent, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a sign&ant effect on the environment, there will not be a signifkant 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.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one
potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described
on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT’ REPORT/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT
be a significant effect in this case because all potentially signifkant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b> have
been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ElR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice
of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
IXI
cl
•J
cl
cl
/D-/D/ 95
Date
Planning Directo~gnat& lhlcii
Date r
Rev. 3m95
- - .
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAm
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental
Impact Assessment to de&mine if a project may have a significaut effect on the environment. The Jhdronmental 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 “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially sign&ant effect on the
environment, but fl potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required
by the prior en viromnental 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.
17-
- - ,
. If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there
are mitigation measms 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 De&&on may be prepared.
. An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited
to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or
mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to
mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than sign&ant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding
Considerations” for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) pmposed
mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or, (4) through the E&Part
II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to
below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
Rev. 3ms
13
-
Isues (and Lhppat@ lnf(xm8tial scurccsl:
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a)
b)
cl
d)
d
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(1:Pg 5.6-9, 5.6-10) ’
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project?
Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (1:Pg 5.6-9, X6-10)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)? (1:Pg 5.13-6)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (1:Pg 5.5-3)
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 5.5-3)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (1:Pg 5.5-3)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (1:Pg 5.1-12)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (1:Pg 5.1-12)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(1:Pg 5.1-12)
x
x
x
x
-\ x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Rev. 3/28/9!!
- .
Is!?ues (md suppmhg Infarmrtiaa sawa?a):
4
e)
0
$1
h)
0
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (1:Pg 5.10.1-
4)
Landslides or mudflows? (1:Pg 5.1-12)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (1:Pg
5.1-13)
Subsidence of the land? (1:Pg 5.1-11)
Expansive soils? (1:Pg 5.1-12)
Unique geologic or physical features? (1 :Pg 5.1 l-
1, 114)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a)
b)
d
4
4
0
t3)
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runoff? (1:Pg 5.2-8)
Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? (1:Pg 5.10.14)
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (1:Pg 5.2-8)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? (1:Pg 5.10.1-4)
Changes in currents, or the coqe or direction of
water movements?
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
.capability? (1:Pg 5.2-8)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(1:Pg 5.2-8)
poteotiluy siinifkant
POtWidlY U&U Le!ssmll
sinifii * - * Sipifiant
Iw=t rlizgzi Impct &t
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
.
Issues (and !hppahg xnfdal sources):
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (1:Pg 5.2-8)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (1:Pg 5.2-8)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
POtUltidly signifii IWXltidy Unlea LeaThan
sisnificrm -- . Sigaifiant Impact Izgz!td Impact It&t
x
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? x -
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (1:Pg 5.3-
4, 3-7)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? (1:Pg 5.3-4, 3-7)
d) Create objectionable odors? (1:Pg 5.34, 3-7)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal
result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? x -
x
x
x
x
b) Hazards to safety fkom design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (l:Pg X7-10 through
5.7-15) x
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses? (1:Pg 5.7-10 through 5.7-15) x
d) Insufficient parking capacity or&e or off-site?
(1:Pg 5.7-10 through 5.7-15) x
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(1:Pg 5.7-10 through 5.7-15) ,- x
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (1:Pg 5.7-10 through 5.7-15)
7
issues md sqpxtiq Infamdcn tiotmcs):
g)
VII.
a)
b)
cl
d)
e)
VIII.
a)
b)
cl
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (1:Pg 5.7-
10 through 5.7-15)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (iticluding but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds? (1:Pg 5.4-21)
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(1:Pg 5.4-2 1)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (1:Pg 5.4-21)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)? (1 :Pg 5.4-2 1)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1:Pg
5.4-2 1)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(1:Pg 5.12.1-5)
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (1 :Pg 5.136)
Result in the bss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region and the residents of the State? (1:Pg
5.13-6)
A
POtWhlly SigIlifii
UllkSS . . .
&-d
Leslllm siificaut
wt zt
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Rev.3/28/!25
lssua (ad zhqpat& IlhmAticm saurcer):
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a)
b)
c)
4
d
A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation? (1:Pg
5.10.2-4 through 2-8)
Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? (1 :Pg 5.10.24
through 2-8)
The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? (1:Pg 5.10.24 through 2-8)
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (1:Pg 5.10.24 through 2-8)
Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (1:Pg 5.12.5-4)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
RXUllidly
signifii
FUtCntinllY Unleg Les5ThM
SW.-- ** . Significant Inlpnct xl!t$z Impct Ilgict
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (1:Pg 5.9-9,9-
12)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (1:Pg
5.9-9,9-12)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result 4n a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (1:Pg 5.12.5-4)
b) Police protection? (1:Pg 5.1262)
c) Schools? (1:Pg 5.12.7-4)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? -
e) Other governmental services? (1:Pg 5.3-3)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
‘x
x
x
x
x
9 Rev. 3/2%p5
Ismu (md sqpming lllfam8tial sauar):
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
PMentirlly siii PWltidly UIhS LesTban signirtcrnt ** * Signifiamt
m=t Iilzgcd laqmct II&t
a) Power or natural gas? (1:Pg 5.12.14,1-5)
b) Communications systems?
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (1:Pg 5.12.2-5)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (1:Pg 5.12.3-3)
e) Storm water drainage? (1:Pg 5.2-8)
f) Solid waste disposal? (1:Pg 5.12.4-2)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (1:Pg 5.12.2-5) - -
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (1:Pg
5.1 l-l,1 l-4; 1:Pg 5.7-15)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
(1:Pg 5.11-1,114)
c) Create light or glare? (1:Pg 5.10.3-l)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (1:Pg 5.8-7)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (1:Pg 5.8-7)
. c) Affect historical resources? (1:Pg 5.8-7)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
(1:Pg 5.8-7)
10 Rev. 3/L8ps
lssuu (md sugpat& InfuIMtim sruras): POlEIUinUy
SigXlifii
POWidly UlhS LeaJThM significant -* * Significant
lmpect lii2gcd Impnct IIgct
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (1:Pg 5.8-7) x
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (1:Pg 5.12.8-
6)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (1:Pg
5.12.8-6)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fsh 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 en vironme&d effects which wilI
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
x
x
x
x
x
11 Rev. 3/28/!35
- . -
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
a)
b)
cl
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, prognun 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:
Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
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.
Mitigation measures. For effects that are Uss than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measums which were incorporated or refined from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the
project.
12 Rev. 3/28/95
- .
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
L PROJECTDESCRWTI ON/ENVIRONMENTALSETTING
The proposed project is the construction of a drive-through lane on an existing 6,000 square foot building in
a shopping center. The use of the building would then be restaurant rather than the current retail use.
Although the restaurant use is more intense than the previous retail use, the City currently allows restaurant
uses in shopping centers.
IL ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:
A. Non-Relevant Items
I. Land Use And Planning
b) The project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designations on the site. There are no
other environmental documents (except CEQA) which are applicable to the project site.
e) There is no established or planned residential community on or adjacent to the subject site. The area
is fully developed with commercial uses.
IV. Water
e) There are no water bodies on or adjacent to the site.
XI. Public Services
d) All necessary public services are available or will be provided as a condition of approval should the
project be approved.
XII: Utilities And Services Systems
b) All necessary utilities and services systems are available.
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
V. AIR OUALITY
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 sulfk, 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 sign&ant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or rninimk 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
13 Rev. 3mv95
32
-
improvements prior to or Bt with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the
implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative
modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site
design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project
or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a “non-
attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “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 9341, 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.
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCUL,ATION
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 Carl&ad 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 minim& the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation
measures have been recommended in the Fii Master EIR. These include meas&es 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 signi&xnt because of the failure of intersections
at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an
EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master ElR 9341, by City Council Resolution No.
94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of
Overriding Considerationa” 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.
III. SOURCE DOCUMENTS - (Note: all ofthe source documents are on file in the Planning Department located
at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carl&ad, CA 92009, Phone (619) 438-1161.)
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carl&ad General Plan Update (MEXR 93-01,
City of Carl&ad Planning Department, March 1994.
14 Rev. 3mP5
23
.
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (-lF APPLICABLE]
A’ITACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM IIF APPLICABLE)
N/A
15 Rev. 3/2a/95
24
.
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WlTH MITIGATION MEASUUZ$
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES
AND CONCUR WlTH THE ADDITION OF THJiSE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
bate
16 Rev. 3f2aps
-h 1- . EXI-WT 3
A REPORT TO TRE PLANNING COMMISSION &a
Item No. 5 0
Application complete date: October 7,19!I5
P.C. AGENDA OF: NOVEMBER 15,1995 Project Planner. Elaine Blackburn
Pmject Engineer: Ken Quon
SUBJECIJ CUP 95-10 - KOOTER% BARBECUE: - Request by Fancher Development Services for a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a drive-through
facility on an existing building in the Carlsbad Plaza Shopping Center. The
shopping center is located on property zoned C-2 and located on the east side
of El Camino Real south of Haymar Drive, within Local Facilities
Management Zone 2.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3837 and
3838 APPROVING a Negative Declaration and DENYING CUP 95-10, based on the findings
contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
The applicant for this project proposes to open a restaurant with associated liquor sales and
a drive-through facility in an existing 6,OW square foot building in the Carlsbad Plaza
Shopping Center. The requested Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for the drive-
through facility to be constructed. Staff has reviewed the application and determined that the project does not satisfy applicable city requirements for drive-through facilities.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The project proposed is a restaurant use with associated liquor sales and a drive-through
facility. The restaurant would be located in an existing 6,000 square foot building at the
northern end of the Carlsbad Plaza Shopping Center. The subject building is currently
vacant. (It was previously occupied by a retail business). The requested drive-through
facility would be constructed along the northern side of the building, with the queuing area
extending along the eastern side (the rear) of the building also.
The Carlsbad Plaza Shopping Center was originally approved in 1970. There was a previous
request for a drive-through facility in the center which could not be accommodated because
of traffic and circulation problems involved in attempting to retrofit a drive-through facility into the existing design. (McDonald’s proposed a drive-through in the center in 1976. That
request was denied).
-
&JP 95-;O KOOTER’S tiARBECUE
NOVEMBER 15,1995
PAGE 2
IV. ANALYSIS
k General Plan
The proposed project is consistent with two of the stated goals and objectives of the General
Plan. Overall Land Use Pattern Goal A.3. calls for a city “which provides for land uses
which through their arrangement, location and size, support and enhance the economic
viability of the community”. The proposed project would enhance the economic viability of
the community by contributing to the tax base and would be located in an area appropriate
for the use type (i.e., an area designated for commercial uses).
Commercial Land Uses Goal A.l. calls for a City “that achieves a healthy and diverse
economic base...” which includes commercial development. The proposed project would
contribute to that goal also by enhancing the economic base of the city.
B. Conditional Uses (Chapter 21.42 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code)
The proposed drive-through facility requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). A
conditional use may be allowed if all of the required findings can be made. With regard to
the proposed drive-through, staff believes that only one of the required findings can be
made. Each of the necessary findings, and the project’s compliance or non-compliance, is
discussed below.
1. Required Finding: That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the
development of the community, is essentially in harmony with the 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;
The requested use is desirable for the development of the community. The use could
enhance the City’s economic base. In addition, the proposed location (in a successful
shopping development near a major highway) is an appropriate location for the use.
The use is also essentially in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the
general plan. Consistency with the General Plan goals and objectives is discussed in
detail in Section I.A. of this report (above).
However, staff believes the use as designed would be detrimental to existing uses or
to uses specifically permitted in the shopping center because the drive-through facility
would not comply with the City’s Engineering policy for minimum queuing distance
and would block access to required parking spaces belonging to all occupants of the
center in common.
The project does not compIy with the City’s Engineering policy for providing the
required queuing distance for the drive-through lane and for access to parking. This
policy, which has been applied to drive-through facilities of other previously approved
restaurant projects, requires the provision of 3 standard vehicle lengths between the
r-
CUP 95-;O KOOTER’S tiA=xtJE
NOVEMBER 15,1995
PAGE 3
pick-up window and order board, and 5 standard vehicle lengths beyond the order
board, and requires that the entire queuing length be clear of (i.e., not block access
to) parking stalls and traffic aisles.
As proposed, the drive-through lane for this project can only accommodate 2 vehicle
lengths between the pick-up window and order board, and only 3 vehicle lengths
before the queue encroaches into the parking lot, blocking both traffic circulation
and access to parking stalls.
An alternative considered for meeting the queuing distance requirement would be
to situate the pick-up window further west along the north side of the building and
to also move the order board further west to increase the queuing distance in the
lane. However, the applicant has indicated that the desired layout of the restaurant
interior and the configuration of the existing building make it difficult to move the
pick-up window further west. He, therefore, does not consider this possibility to be
feasible.
The applicant has indicated that this project will be primarily a sit down restaurant
facility with a significantly lower traffic volume and drive-through demand than a
typical fast food restaurant. In considering a drive-through facility for another
previous low traffic volume restaurant project, the City permitted a reduced queuing
distance requirement of 2 standard vehicle lengths between the pick-up window and
order board, and 4 standard vehicle lengths beyond the order board, clear of parking
stalls and traffic aisles. This reduced requirement was considered to be the minimum
allowable distance necessary to avoid circulation and traffic impacts. However, even
with the application of this reduced minimum requirement, the proposed project still
would not comply with the policy, and therefore, cannot be supported by staff. In
addition, staff is concerned with the future use of the building and drive-through
facility. The applicant has stated that his restaurant is primarily a sit-down
restaurant. However, the applicant may not occupy the building forever. If another
user were to lease the building in the future, and that user has a high volume usage
of the drive-through lane, the use of parking spaces in the general area of the site
could be severely restricted and internal circulation severely impacted. With the
drive-through facility already in place, it would be very difficult to further retrofit the
facility for such a user.
The applicant has proposed designating those parking stalls which would be blocked
by a vehicle in the queue as employee parking for his restaurant employees.
However, the designation of parking spaces for a single user is not possible in
shopping centers because all parking stalls in the center belong to, and are shared by,
all occupants of the center. The parking provided by the center currently is based
upon an assumption that this sharing occurs. The current approved site plan for the
shopping center requires and provides a total of 736 parking spaces for use by all
occupants. Approximately 46 of these spaces are located in the area immediately
surrounding the proposed restaurant building. If the parking requirement for each
of the occupants were to be calculated individually, the number of required spaces
CUP 95-10 KGGTER‘S dAR-J%ic!tJE
NOVEMBER 15, 1995
PAGE 4
would be at least 835 spaces. This number significantly exceeds the number required
under the current method of calculation. Restricting the use of individual parking
spaces to specific users would be contrary to the shared use that is the basis for
allowing 736 spaces to be provided rather than calculating each user’s parking requirement individually. (See Item 2, below, for more detailed discussion of these
issues.)
The Planning Department has previously allowed changes of uses in shopping centers
provided that there was no loss of existing parking and that additional parking be
provided for any proposed expanded use area. The applicant for the current project
has stated verbally that the parking area can be redesigned to continue to provide
736 spaces, but in a different configuration. The applicant has also stated that his
proposed site plan can accommodate 736 spaces. However, staff cannot confirm this
exact number on the proposed site plan as the plan submitted is not legible in some
areas. In addition, the submitted site plan shows some parking spaces in a location
which would be blocked by cars in the drive-through lane, making those spaces
unusable. The striping for such unusable spaces would need to be removed, resulting
in a reduction in total parking for the center and in the immediate area of the
proposed use. These blocked spaces cannot be restricted for use by a single user, as
discussed above, because they belong to all occupants of the center and the parking
requirement ratio is based upon shared use of all spaces.
Therefore, staff has concluded, and recommends, that this required finding cannot
be made.
2. Required Finding: That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape
to accommodate the use;
The site for the intended use is not adequate in size and shape to accommodate the
use because the site with the existing building cannot accommodate the proposed
drive-through lane without violating the City’s Engineering policy requiring the
provision of adequate queuing distance and access to parking spaces and traffic aisles.
The project does not meet the Engineering policy for providing the required queuing
distance for the drive-through lane. As discussed in Item 1 above, this policy has
been applied to drive-through facilities of other previously approved restaurant
projects. The policy requires the provision of 3 standard vehicle lengths between the pick-up window and order board, and 5 standard vehicle lengths beyond the order
board, and requires that the entire queuing length be clear of parking stalls and
traffic aisles.
The project also cannot accommodate a reduced queuing distance (the shortest
queuing distance previously approved) of 2 and 4 standard vehicle lengths, as
discussed in Item 1 above.
-
CUP 95:10 KOOTER'S HARBECUE
NOVEMBER 15, 1995
PAGES
As proposed, the drive-through lane for this project can only accommodate 2 vehicle
lengths between the pick-up window and order board, and only 3 vehicle lengths
before the queue encroaches into the parking lot, blocking both traffic circulation
and access to parking stalls.
The applicant has proposed designating those parking stalls which would be blocked
by a vehicle in the queue as employee parking for his restaurant employees. Again,
as discussed in Item 1 above, the designation of parking spaces for a single user is
not possible in shopping centers because all parking stalls in the center belong to,
and are shared by, all occupants of the center. The parking provided by the center
currently is based upon an assumption that this sharing occurs. The approved plan
for the shopping center currently requires and provides a total of 736 parking spaces
for use by all occupants (a parking ratio of approximately 1 space for each 230 square feet of gross floor area). If the parking requirement for each of the occupants were
to be calculated individually, the number of required spaces would be at least 835
spaces. Restricting the use of individual spaces to particular users would be contrary
to the shared use that is the basis for allowing 736 spaces to be provided rather than
a minimum of 835 spaces because it would prohibit other occupants of the center
from sharing the use of those spaces.
For the reasons discussed above, staff recommends that this required finding cannot
be made.
3. Required Finding: That all of the yards, setbacks, walls, 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;
The existing shopping center includes walls, fences, and landscaping. Staff believes
the current quantity and configuration will accommodate the proposed use.
However, the “other features” necessary to adjust the proposed drive-through use to
the center would not be provided. These would include the provision of adequate
internal circulation and queuing distance necessary for the drive-through and
maintaining the accessibility of all existing parking spaces. As discussed in Items 1
and 2 above, the proposed project does not provide adequate circulation, queuing
distance, or access to parking spaces.
Therefore, staff recommends that this required finding also cannot be made.
4. Required Finding: That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to
properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use;
The public street system serving the proposed use includes El Camino Real and
Haymar Drive. El Camino Real is a Prime Arterial intended to provide for regional
and inter-city circulation and carry very heavy traffic volumes. Haymar Drive is a
local street intended to provide access to adjoining properties and designed to carry
a minimum amount of traffic. Haymar Drive is constructed to varying widths and
. -
CUP 95-10 KOOTER’S kSA-%!uE
NOVEMBER 15,199s
PAGE 6
currently dead ends approximately 1800 feet east of the proposed restaurant site.
The traffic exiting the drive-through facility would exit onto Haymar. The street
system surrounding the shopping center was designed to accommodate the traffic
generated by the shopping center at full occupancy.
Staff believes the street system, as it exists today, would accommodate any expected
traffic, and that this required finding can be made.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Director has determined that the proposed project could not have a significant
effect on the environment and has, therefore, issued a Negative Declaration on October 13,
1995.
VI. SUMMARY
To summarize, staff has reviewed the proposed project and has determined that the project
does not comply with the City’s Engineering policy regarding minimum queuing distance and
providing adequate internal circulation and parking access. Staff has, therefore, concluded
that only one of the four required findings necessary to grant the CUP can be made.
Consequently, staff is recommending denial of the proposed project.
ATI’ACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3837
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3838
3. Location Map
4. Background Data Sheet
5. Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
6. Disclosure Statement.
- BACKGROUND DATA SHEET --
CASE NO: CUP 95-10
CASE NAME: Kooter’s Barbecue
APPLICANT: Fancher DeveloDment Services
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Construction of a drive-through facilitv on an existing 6.000 sauare foot
building in a shopping center on the east side of El Camino Real south of Havmar Drive
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcels 1 and 3 of Parcel MaD No. 4838. being a nortion of Lots 4 and 5 of
Fractional Section 32. Townshin 11 south. Range 4 west. San Bernardino Meridian. in the Citv of
Carlsbad. County of San Diego. State of California. recorded June 18. 1976.
APN: 167-030-50 Acres: N/A Proposed No. of Lots/Units: N/A
(Assessor’s Parcel Number)
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation C (Commercial)
Density Allowed N/A Density Proposed N/A
Existing Zone c-2 Proposed Zone C-2
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning Requirements)
Site
North
south
East
west
School District Carlsbad
Zoning
c-2
City of Oceanside
c-2
R-1-10
c-2
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Water District Carlsbad
Land Use
Shopping Center
State Highway 78
Shopping Center
Undeveloped
Shonping Center
Sewer District Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) 14.67 EDU’s
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated July 3. 1995
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
X Negative Declaration, issued October 13. 1995
Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
Other,
K:iADMlNlMERQE\DOCiBDS.DOC
EB:kr REV.?/91
32
, .
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: KOOTER’S BARBECUE CUP 95-10
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 2 GENERAL PLAN: C (COMMERCIAL)
ZONING: C-2
DEVELOPER’S NAME: FANCHER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ADDRESS: 1342 BELL AVENUE. SUITE 3-K. TUSTIN. CA 92680
PHONE NO: (714) 258-1808 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO: 167-030-50
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): anxly 6.000 sf (existing building)
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE:
A.
B.
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage =
Library: Demand in Square Footage =
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer)
Park: Demand in Acreage =
Drainage: Demand in CFS =
Identify Drainage Basin =
N/A
N/A
C.
D.
E.
N/A
N/A
Buena Vista
F. 1.500
G.
H.
I.
(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:
3
N/A
N/A
J.
(Demands to be determined by staff)
Sewer: Demand in EDUs -
Identify Sub Basin -
14.67
N/A
K.
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water: Demand in GPD -
The project is untis the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
3.227
L.
EB:kr K:lADh4lNb4ERGB\DOC3LFL4C\LFIA.DOC
33
. .
Disdosure StateM Page 2
--
5. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards
ommittees and Council within the past twelve months?
If yes, please indicate person(s)
Person is defined as: ‘Any indiviiuaf, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, CorpOratiofI, estate. ttust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city
municipality, district or other polncal subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit:
(NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)
See attached signature page
Signature of Owner/date
Print or type name of owner
\sJiLLittW Il. FAKJCH-EJ?
Print or type name of applicant
“A Q- &i- -city of C!rlsbad b’ ,
OISCLOSURE STATEMENT
APP~CANTS STATEMENT OF OlSCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON AU APPUCA~ONS WHICH WIU REOUIRE DlSCREfIONARY ACTION ON ME PART OF THE Cl-W COUNCIL OR ANY APPOlMEo i 6OARD, COMMISSION OR COMMflTEE. ,
I -!
(Please Print)
The following information must be disclosed:
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
FANCHER DEVELOPwbS MC 9 *
1342 BELLeAVENUE, SUITE 3K
TUSTIN, CA 92680
-(714)258-1808
2. owner
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
CARLSBAD PLAZA LTD.
800 NEWPORT CENTER DR, SUITE 250
NEWPORTBEACH, CA 92660
(714)759-9531
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names an
addresses of all individuals owning more than 1096 of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnershI interest in the partnership.
CARLSBAD PLAZA LTD.
- WILLIAM W. HUGHES, JR.
- JAMES A. CRABTREE
- JOHN K. WAKEN
r-dK UE’imi-m 1 -=J
WlLLlAhl LJ. rANLl-a%
ULNA I-ANLHCK
4. H any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organiration or a trust, list the names an addresses of any person sewing as officer or director of the non-profit organizatlon or as trustee or beneficiar of the trust.
N/A
, .
Disclosure Statement Signature Page, Carlsbad Plaza October 26, 1995
CAFILSBAD PLAZA, LTD., a California limited partnership / <
By: Fe- f
William W. Hughe's, Jr. General Partnk
- EX-4
PLANNING COMMISSION November 151995 PAGE 7
5) CUP 95-10 - KCCTER’S BARBEQUE - Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction
of a drive-through facility on an existing building in the Carlsbad Plaza Shopping Center. The
shopping center is located on property zoned C-Z on the east side of El Camino Real south of
Haymar Drive, within Local Facilities Management Zone 2.
Chairperson Welshons advised the applicant that they have the right to be heard before a full Commission.
She inquired if they would like to be continued or heard tonight. Bill Fancher, 1342 Bell Avenue, Tustin,
applicant, stated that he would like to proceed with the hearing tonight.
Chairperson Welshons advised the applicant that the Planning Commission’s decision tonight is final
unless appealed to the City Council within ten calendar days.
Elaine Blackburn, Associate Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the applicant
is requesting a CUP for a drive-thru facility at a proposed restaurant with associated liquor
sales/consumption, to be located in an existing building in the Carlsbad Plaza Shopping Center. The
shopping center is on the east side of El Camino Real, immediately south of Haymar Drive and
Highway 78. The proposed restaurant site is at the northern end of the center on property zoned C-2. The
existing building is approximately 6,000 s.f., previously occupied by a retail use. The restaurant use with
incidental alcohol sales/consumption is allowed by right in the C-2 zone. The CUP is required for the
drive-thru facility.
Staff has reviewed the proposed plan and believes that the findings necessary to approve the CUP cannot
be made. The proposed drive-thru facility does not comply with the City’s engineering policy requiring a
minimum queuing distance and a queuing area clear of parking stalls and traffic aisles so that internal
circulation and parking are not impeded. The engineering policy requires a minimum queuing distance of
three standard vehicle lengths between the pick-up window and the order board, and five standard vehicle
lengths beyond the order board (a total of eight vehicle lengths). The smallest queuing distance previously
permitted in the City (for a low volume drive-thru) was a distance of two and four (a total of six) vehicle
lengths. The applicant’s proposal does not comply with either the standard, or the reduced, queuing
requirement.
The proposed facility can only accommodate two and three (a total of five) vehicle lengths before the
queue encroaches into the parking lot, blocking both traffic circulation and access to parking stalls. The
parking stalls which would be blocked by the queue would need to be removed, resulting in a reduction in
the number of parking spaces in this part of the shopping center. The City has previously allowed changes
in uses in existing underparked shopping centers as long as there was no loss of parking. Staff is
concerned with any loss of parking to the center as a whole, because it is currently underparked according
to current code requirements. However, we are also concerned with any loss of parking in this portion of
the subject shopping center. Generally, parking in shopping centers should be dispersed such that a
sufficient number of spaces are located within a reasonable proximity of each of the uses in the center.
There are several parking-intensive uses in the subject portion of this shopping center (including the Good
Guys retail use and several small restaurants). Yet this part of the center has the least amount of parking.
Staff believes further intensification of uses and loss of parking in this portion of the center would
exacerbate the problem. Staff recommends denial of the CUP on the basis that the necessary findings
cannot be made.
Chairperson Welshons invited the applicant to speak.
Bill Fancher, 1842 Bell Avenue, Tustin, addressed the Commission and stated that the engineering policy
referred to by staff is not written down and cannot therefore be called a standard. He explained the
Kooter’s operation in Santee and stated that most customers dine in but there are some take-out
customers who use the prime parking spaces in front of the restaurant while they are picking up their order.
MINUTES
36
h , DRAFT
PLANNING COMMISSION November 15,1995 PAGE 8
Most orders are called in prior to pickup. He would like to use the proposed location for a restaurant and
limited drive-thru facility. By having a drive-thru which would accommodate 3-4 cars, it would open up
more parking for diners. He noted that the drive-thru is not intended for the patron who wants to pick up a
quick lunch and eat it in the parking lot. He believes that most orders will still be called in prior to pick-up.
Mr. Fancher handed out a commentary on the Santee restaurant which was recently published in the
Pennysaver.
Steve Garland, Stevens & Garland, 16787 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, addressed the
Commission and explained that he calculated the drive-thru use and requirement for parking based on
receipts at the San&e restaurant. He reiterated that the majority of business is inside dining and that only
a very small percentage of patrons are take-out.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if a restaurant’s business usually increases when a drive-thru is added. Mr.
Garland replied that a typical fast food restaurant like MacDonald’s or Taco Bell would probably experience
a 1 O-l 5% increase. ,However, he reiterated that Kooter’s does not operate like a MacDonald’s drive-thru.
Commissioner Erwin inquired about the waiting time to pick up an order. Mr. Garland replied that the
average wait would be two minutes. Most orders are called in ahead and the order is ready and waiting for
pickup when the customer arrives.
Mr. Fancher returned to the podium and stated that the owners have a great deal of experience in the fast
food field, having previously owned Rally’s, Burger King’s, and Godfather’s Pizza. They will be using many
of the same operations people who worked in these fast food facilities. In the case of Kooter’s, the meat is
cooked for three days in large barbeque pits. When an order is called in, it is only necessary to cut the
meat and package it in a box. He showed a typical order and the size of box that is used, for the benefit of
the Commissioners.
Commissioner Erwin inquired how long a patron would have to wait if the order has not been called in
ahead. Mr. Fancher replied that it would be about the same time because the meat is already cooked. It is
just a matter of packing it up and handing it out the window. However, the method of packaging is not
conducive to eating it in the car.
Commissioner Monroy inquired about the l-beam on the building which is prohibiting the drive-thru from
being located nearer the front of the building. Staff showed Commissioner Monroy the l-beam on the
blueprint.
Commissioner Compas inquired if the applicant would still build the restaurant if the drive-thru is denied.
Mr. Fancher replied that the owner would have to make that decision. They are trying to take Kooter’s
nationwide. Right now a drive-thru is important for the development of the business. They want to try out
the concept to see if it works.
l
Commissioner Compas inquired if the proposed drive-thru would hinder use of some of the parking
spaces. Mr. Fancher replied that the queuing area is in the very farthest corner of the parking lot, and that
Haymar Drive is a deadend, with no traffic whatsoever. He passed out photographs of the proposed site
and the parking area and noted that the photographs were taken at lunch time with a business operating in
the building. There are only two cars in the entire parking lot. Any parking spaces which might be blocked
could be used for employee parking. He believes there is an over-abundance of parking at the site which
will not be used.
Chairperson Welshons noticed that the wood storage area is at the rear of the building adjacent to parking.
She inquired how frequently wood would be delivered to the site. Mr. Fancher replied that wood deliveries
would be once a week and very early in the morning, before the restaurant is open for business.
MINUTES
37
PLANNING COMMISSION November 15,1995 PAGE 9
Chairperson Welshons inquired about the proposed layout of the building. Mr. Fancher described the
layout, where the kitchen would be, where the drive-thru window would be, where the dishes are washed,
where patrons would select their food and sit, etc.
Chairperson Welshons opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak.
There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairperson Welshons
declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members.
Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer, verified the engineering policy for drive-thru queuing. Staff feels this
is a very lenient policy. The average queuing in other cities is 5+5, where Carlsbad uses 3+5 and
occasionally 2+4. The applicant is proposing 2+3. The main problem with allowing the CUP for a
drive-thru is that CUPS run with the land. If Kooter’s moves out, another lessee could come in and locate
a fast food facility like Rally’s with only tenant improvements. He understands the applicant’s arguments
but there is no way to guarantee that Kooter’s will be the only tenant. Mr. Wojcik showed slides of the site
which showed the parking lot packed with vehicles.
Chairperson Welshons inquired if we will be losing parking spaces. Mr. Wojcik replied that he can’t tell
from the exhibits because he can’t count the spaces. He has not seen a plan showing re-striping.
Commissioner Monroy inquired if there is some way the drive-thru could be relocated. Mr. Wojcik replied
that if the drive-thru were moved forward, a 2+4 queuing could be achieved.
Commissioner Savary commented that cars will need to circulate in the parking lot to exit because Haymar
Drive exits onto El Camino Real directly in the Highway 78 right-turn lane.
Commissioner Noble knows how frustrating it is to be hungry and not able to find a parking space because
the circulation is blocked. He would support the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if the menu board could be relocated. Mr. Wojcik replied that there still
needs to be room to queue four cars behind the menu board.
Commissioner Erwin would like to see a one-year CUP and if Kooter’s doesn’t work out, we would not
renew it.
Commissioner Monroy believes the applicant can move the exit forward if they want to. Therefore, he will
support the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Savary would not object to a 6 month or one year CUP if it could be monitored properly.
Commissioner Compas inquired if the drive-thru could be restricted to Kooter’s and no one else. Mr.
Wayne replied no.
Commissioner Compas inquired if they could be granted a trial period of 6 months or one year. Mr. Wayne
replied that the CUP could automatically expire at one year. It would give staff an opportunity to come
back and re-review the situation to see if the CUP should be renewed. Mr. Wayne further stated that this
is usually done to revise the conditions of approval, but to rescind the CUP entirely could be very difficult.
Chairperson Welshons stated that it is difficult to control customers and make sure they call in their orders
ahead. Neither can one predict the stacking of cars. Since parking is at a premium, she will support the
staff recommendation.
MINUTES
-
PLANNING COMMISSION November 15, 1995 PAGE 10
ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Noble, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution Nos. 3837 and 3838 approving a Negative Declaration and
denvinq CUP 95-l 0, based on the findings contained therein.
VOTE: 5-l
AYES: Compas, Monroy, Noble, Savary, Welshons
NOES: Erwin
ABSTAIN: None
+
' 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Office of the City Clerk alitg af Qktrlsbotb
TELEPHONE
(619) 434-2808
DATE : November 17, 1995
TO : Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director
FROM: Karen Kundtz, Assistant City Clerk
RE: CUP 95-10 - KOOTERS BAR-B-QUE
THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
According to the Municipal Code, appeals must be heard by the City Council
within 30 days of the date that the appeal was filed. (REMINDER: The item
will not be noticed in the newspaper until the agenda bill is signed off by
- all parties.)
Please process this item in accordance with the pKOCeduKes contained in the
Agenda Bill Preparation Manual. If you have any questions, please call.
The appeal of the above matter should be scheduled for the City Council
Meeting of
Signature Date
ACCOUNT NO. I DESCRIPTION I . AMOUNT
RECEIPT NO. 26855 NOT VALID UNLESS VALIDATED BY TOTAL
@ Rlntrdan ncyslcdpapr. CASH REGISTER
FANCHER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. INC.
’ Land Lhelopmenl Consulmnis
November 16. 1995
Ms. Karen Kundtz
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
1200 Carlsbad Village Way
Carlsbad. CA 92008
RE: Conditional Use Permit #95-10
Proposed Drive-Through for
Kooter’s Bar-B-Que
2506 El Camino Real
Carlsbad Plaza, Carlsbad
Dear Ms. Kundtz,
As the applicant for the above referenced project, we hereby request the appeal of the Planning
Commission decision to deny the above referenced application, from the evening of November 15,
1995.
We are appealing the decision based on the grounds that decision by the Planning Commission did not
sufficiently refute the evidence provided by the applicant and his expert.
Enclosed you will find a check for $490.00. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or
concerns. Thank you.
Sincerely,
FHCHER DEVELOPMENT SERWCES, INC.
President
1342 Bell Avenue, Suile 3-K. Tuain, Cullfoorniu 9268V. (71J) 258-1808. FAX (714) 258-2401
c
,,,I
PROOF OF PUBLIL-TION
(2010 8 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above
entiffled matter. I am the principal derk of the printer of
North County Times
formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudged newspapers of general circulation by the
Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of
California, under tfie dates of June 30, 1989
(Blade-Citizen) and June 21, 1974 (Times-
Advocate) case number 171349 (Blade-Citizen)
and case number 172171 (The Times-Advocate)
for the cities of Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad,
Solana Beach and the North County Judicial
District; that the notice of which the annexed is a
printed copy (set in type not smaller than
nonpareil), has been published in each regular and
entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
January 5, 1996
I certify (c)r declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at California, this
of
5th day
jan. 1996
"- /A """""" """""
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
4
This space is dr the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of
""""~""""""""~
Notice of public hearing
I -
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPEAL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO p.m., on Tuesday, January 16, 1996, to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission denial of an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a drive-through facility
on an existing building in the Carlsbad Plaza Shopping Center, on property zoned C-2, and generally located on the east side of El Camino Real, south of Haymar Drive, in Local Facilities Management Zone 2, and more particularly described as:
Parcels 1 and 3 of Parcel Map No. 4838, being a portion of Lots 4 and 5 of Fractional Section 32, Township 11 south, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego County Recorder on June 18, 1976. Diego, State of California, recorded in the Office of the San
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Elaine Blackburn in the Planning Department, at (619) 438-1161, extension 4471.
If you challenge the Conditional Use Permit in court, you may be limited to
described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City raising only those issues raised by you or someone else at the public hearing
of Carlsbad City Clerkls Office at, or prior to, the public hearing.
APPELLANT : William Fancher PUBLISH: January 5, 1996
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
KOOTER'S BARBECUE
CUP 95-10
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will
hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad,
California, at 6:OO p.m. on Wednesday, November 15, 1995, to consider a request by
Fancher Development Services for a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a
drive-through facility on an existing building in the Carlsbad Plaza Shopping Center on
property zoned C2 and generally located on the east side of El Carnino Real south of
Haymar Drive, within Local Facilities Management Zone 2 and more particularly
described as:
Parcels 1 and 3 of Parcel Map No. 4838, being a portion of Lots 4 and 5
of Fractional Section 32, Township 11 south, Range 4 west, San Bernardino
Meridian, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
recorded June 18. 1976.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after November 9, 1995. If
you have any questions, please call Elaine Blackburn in the Planning Department at (619)
438-1 161, ext. 4471.
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 95-10
CASE NAME: KOOTER’S BARBECUE
PUBLISH: NOVEMBER 2, 1995
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING COMMISSION
EB: kr
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 (619) 438-1 161 @
TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the naterlals necessary for you to notice
APPEAL - Kooter's Barbeque - CUP 95-10
for a public hearing before the Clty Councll.
Please notlce the ltem for the council neetlng
Thank you.
December 5, 1995
Date
SWNERSHIP LIST WITHIN A 6OO"DNS OF
2506 EL CAMINO RW, CARLSBAD
JN 6.6
MAY DEPARTMENT STORES CO 611 OLIVE ST. NO. 1555
ST. LOUIS, MO 63101 NEWPORT BCH., CA 92660
PLAZA CAMINO REAL 13 CORPORATE DR.
CT REALTY PARTNERS V LP RAJESH P. PATEL
2532 DUPONT DR. IRVINE, CA 92715
FORD ASSOCIATES V OCEAN
4540 KEARNY VILLA RD#213 2460 FONTAINE RD. SAN JOSE, CA 95121 SAN DIEGO, CA 92123
MARTIN W. HUFFMAN VANDERBURG LIVING TRUST 0 AZALEA INC
1901 LINCOLN ST. OCEANSIDE, CA 92054 P.O. BOX 745 CARLSBAD, CA 92018 ARCADIA, CA 91006
150 N. SANTA ANITA X645
AZALEA PARTNERSHIP HELIX ASSOCIATES
LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 EL CAJON, CA 92022 600 11777 SAN VICENTE BL.#600 P.O. BOX 985
. STEPHEN A. HARDLEY DIRECTORS MTG LOAN SCOTT CARTER
30809 E. SUNSET DR. S 1827 ATUNTA AVE. 1566 LUCKY ST.
REDLANDS, CA 92373 RIVERSIDE, CA 92507 OCEANSIDE, CA 92054
STANLEY W. HOFFMAN ERNEST C. GRANT DEBRA M. GERHART
3471 VALLEY ST. 2342 HOSP WAY do. 2344 HOSP WAY X125
CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CARLSBAD, CA 92008
BRIAN A. CORSO CRAIG R. TURK FEDERAL DEPOSIT INS CORP 2344 HOSP WAY NO. 127 4180 LA JOLLA VL.DR.iY4
CARLSBAD, CA 92008 2340 HOSP WAY NO. 217 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 LA JOLLA, CA 92037
CHARLES V. ROBINSON EARL L. SHELMAN MARGARET F. STOLL
2342 HOSP WAY NO. 222 2342 HOSP WAY NO. 223 2342 HOSP WAY NO. 224 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CARLSBAD, CA 92008
DAVID C. BLASKO DONALD L. JABBAR DONALD R. RADY
2344 HOSP WYA NO. 227 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 2344 HOSP WAY NO. 228
ENCINITAS, CA 92024 920 SEALAND DR. NO. C
MAY DEPT. STORES CO. RICHARD KELLY TRUST RICHARD KELLY TRS
ST. LOUIS, MO 63101 611 OLIVE ST. X1300 ARCADIA, CA 91006 150 N.SANTA ANITA AV.#645 2770 SUNNYCREEK RD CARLSBAD, CA. 92008
RAYMOND R. GIPSON JERRY A. HUBER
HONOLULU, HI 96815
2345 ALA WAI BLVD.
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
2340 HOSP WAY NO. 320
EHRLICH/SCHULTHEIS PTNSHP KRISTY KLEIN
250 W. COLORADO BLVD9D-
ARCADIA, CA 91007
2342 HOSP WAY NO. 323 CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ENA L. MITCHELL
2344 HOSP WAY NO. 325
VILHA J. THOMAS
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
4518 GAINSBOROUGH AVE.
LOS ANGELES, CA 90027
WAND0 L. MAGANA OWEN LESTER h FREDA TRS
2360 HOSP WAY NO. 129 CARLSBAD, CA 92008
1339 CRESTVIEW RD. REDLANDS, CA 92374
MAYME R. WILLIS FRANKLIN M. TAYLOR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
2360 HOSP WAY NO. 132
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
2362 HOSP WAY NO. 133
CATHERINE ROWAN
409 DELL CT.
SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ROSE K. MILLIGAN
2360 HOSP WAY NO. 229
DONALD A. DODS
WARWICK, NY 10990
162 S. ROUTE 94
RUTH M. MADIGAN
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
2360 HOSP WA~Y NO. 232
.
CHARLES S. BROWN
3886 SPITZE DR.
US VEGAS, NV 89103 CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ISAAC R. MINOR
2362 HOSP WAY NO. 236
SELL FAMILY TRUST 4-15-9 P.O. BOX 1091
CARLSBAD, CA 92018
CLINT PIERCE
2342 HOSP WAY NO. 320 CARLSBAD, CA 92008
TERESA L. GOAR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
2344 HOSP WAY NO. 327
RAYMOND J. TAFEJIAN
2360 HOSP WAY NO. 131
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
HOSP WAY LTD
1990 WESTWOOD BLM.#300
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
#
MICHAEL P. MORIOKA
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
2360 HOSP WAY NO. 230
JOSEPH SPINA
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
2362 HOSP WAY NO. 233
CALVIN J. PATTON
110 ROSS AVE.
SAN ANSELMO, CA 94960
DEBORAH K. CHRISTENSEN MATTHEW V. WORTHINGTON MARILYN J. POWELL
2360 HOSP WAY NO. 331
CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CARLSBAD, CA 92008
2066 AVE. OF THE TREES
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
2362 HOSP WAY NO. 333
, , ..
MARCUS J. SMITH
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
2362 HOSP WAY NO. 334
LEROY F. MORRIS
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
2330 HOSP WAY NO. 102
THOMAS N. SEELA
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
246 HEMLOCK
SMITH FRANCIS FAMILY TRS
4718 ATHOS WAY ""EANSIDE, CA 92056 %j&. -
DAVID L. DOWNEY
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
2336 HOSP WAY NO. 115
JOHN 0. CHUN
2330 HOSP WAY NO. 202
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
PHYLLIS YAMAGUCHI
CERRITOS, CA 90701
12552 BRAND0 ST.
MICHELLE KANTER
2334 HOSP WAY NO. 209
CARLSBAD. CA 92008
GAYLE J. MAYFIELD
CARLSBM, CA 92008
2336 HOSP WAY NO. 213
ALAN J. COMTE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
2362 HOSP WAY NO. 335
RICHARD ROMOSER
2330 HOSP WAY N0.103 CARLSBAD, CA 92008
WALTER L. SHATSKY
27672 VIA REAL
SUN CITY, CA 92585
ELOISE DOYLE
2336 HOSP WAY NO. 113
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
EDWARD E. LAVOIE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
2336 HOSP WAY Mo. 116
EDWARD S. GWIN
2600 KENTMOOR Rd. X116
BLOOMFIELD, MI 48304
CHO KIN-HANG
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
2332 HOSP WAY NO. 207
PAULETTE M. CIMMARUSTI
2334 HOSP WAY NO. 210
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ROBERT R. BRIGGS
2336 HOSP WAY NO. 215
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
BRENDA STONE
PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264
3700 E.CALLE DE RICDO X1
LAWRENCE LUEVANO
2332 HOSP WAY NO. 106 CARLSBAD, CA 92008
FERRIS COOK
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
2334 HOSP WAY NO. 111
ROBERT W. GALLOWAY
1706 DOWNS ST.
OCEANSIDE, CA 92054
8
JAMES R. HILL
MAPLEWOOD, MN 55119
2636 BROOKVIEW DR.
LAURIE J. COHEN
2332 HOSP WAY NO. 205
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ANWAR M. SHADWARD
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
2332 HOSP WAY NO. 208
VIRGIL MAGISTRALE
2334 HOSP WAY NO. 212
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
AHMAD MEHDIKHANI
4031 ALTO ST.
OCEANSIDE, CA 92056
. .. . , I.
MICHAEL G. HATCH
OCEANSIDE, CA 92056
2312 BACK NINE ST.
LINDA P. FLYNN
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
2330 HOSP WAY NO. 304
BOWMAN RICHARD WILLIAM
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
2332 HOSP WAY NO. 307
STEVEN A. TURNER
P.O. BOX 31728
CHARLOTTE, NC 28231
MARTIN L. ACOSTA 2354 WALES DR. CARDIFF, CA 92007
CHRISTOPHER B. RANDOLPH
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
2332 HOSP WAY NO. 308
USIN I. PISINGAN
PSC 79 BOX 20032
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 96364 APO AP
VANDERBURG LIVING TRS
SUITE 165
150 N. SANTA ANITA AVE.
ARCADIA, CA 91006
YOUGSHENG LIANG
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
2334 HosP WAY NO. 310
RORY S. GOREE CHRIS M. BADER BRADFORD FAMILY TRS 04
2334 HOSP WAY NO. 311 2334 HOSP WAY NO. 312 2336 HOSP WAY NO. 313
CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CARLSBAD, CA 92008
a
MICHAEL L. DILL
CORONA, CA 91719 13081 FESCUE CT.
FANCHER DEV. SER. 1342 BELL AVE. SUITE 3-K
TUSTIN, CA. 92680
PAUL C. BAKER 167-250-42 & 43 OWNED
2336 HOSP WAY NO. 315 BY: HOSP WAY LTD.
CARLSBAD, CA 92008 SEE 167-250-42-42
~ SAN DIEGO COUNTY PLANNING I , ~
~ 5201 RUFFIN RD STE "B"
1'4 :, , ,, ;I
SAN DIEGO CA 92123 1 1 ~ gzv ~ ' ,, ~ ' ! ' ' CITY OF CARLSB
,, ;!, A I:
~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ,I, ~ ~ ~ ~
, , ,,
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF OCEANSIDE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT 300 NO COAST HWY
PROJECT PLANNER OCEANSIDE CA 92054
ELAINE BLACKBURN
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
330 GOLDENSHORE #50
LONG BEACH CA 90802