HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-10-21; City Council; 14396; PriceCostco Gasoline’ CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGEhA BILL
AB# 4396 TITLE: DEPT. HD.
PRICECOSTCO GASOLINE MTG. 10/21/97 SDP 90-05(C)/CUP 90-03(A)ICDP 97-05 CITY AT-I-Y.
DEPT. PLN CITY MGR
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That Council ADOPT Resolution No.97-L@? , APPROVING the Negative Declaration,
Site Development Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Coastal
Development Permit for the Price Costco Gasoline development.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On August 6, 1997, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and approved
with a 6-l vote (Monroy) the Site Development Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit
Amendment and Coastal Development Permit for the PriceCostco Gasoline development.
The permits would allow the construction of a gasoline station for the exclusive use of
Costco members on their existing site.
The gas station canopy would contain three pump islands and be located in the northeast
corner of the existing Costco parking lot to maximize circulation and lessen parking impacts.
While 87 parking spaces would be removed for the gas station, the parking lot would still
have 810 parking spaces, which is 226 more than required by code. The station would only
be open during normal operating hours of the warehouse and would not adversely affect
traffic on Palomar Airport Road or Armada Drive.
On September 2, 1997, the City Council adopted an urgency ordinance requiring all
commercial development proposals in proximity to the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan area to
be reviewed by the City Council. Due to its location near Carlsbad Ranch, the urgency
ordinance applies to the PriceCostco Gasoline project. Since the proposed gasoline station
will not generate a significant amount of additional traffic and the submitted traffic report
shows that no significant impacts to adjacent roadways will result, staff and the Planning
Commission recommend approval of the proposed PriceCostco Gasoline project.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impacts to the City are negligible since all development fees will be collected
through building permit processing. All publ[c facilities necessary to serve the development
are in place.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Environmental analysis has been conducted on the Costco property on two occasions, the
Conditional Negative Declaration for the original Price Club building and the Master EIR for
the 1994 General Plan update. With regard to potential impacts such as land use,
biological resources, public services and utilities and cultural resources, the proposed action
has no additional impacts not previously analyzed in the earlier environmental review and
PAGE 2 OF AGENDLdILL NO.
-
3 ‘! :37 b
no additional review or mitigation measures are necessary. With regard to visual aesthetics
and circulation, the Planning Director determined that no significant environmental impacts
would result and issued a Negative Declaration on July 1 I, 1997.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resolution No. 93-498
2. Location Map
3. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4142, 4143, 4144 and 4145
4. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated August 6, 1997
5. Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes, dated August 6, 1997.
a
I , II
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
RESOLUTION NO. 97-648
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT
NO. SDP 90-05(C), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AMENDMENT NO. CUP 90-03(A), AND COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-05 TO CONSTRUCT AND
OPERATE AN AUTOMATIC GASOLINE STATION WITHIN
THE EXISTING COSTCO PARKING LOT ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD BETWEEN ARMADA DRIVE
AND PASEO DEL NORTE IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 5.
CASE NAME: PRICECOSTCO GASOLINE
CASE NO: SDP 90-05KKUP 90-03cA)CDP 97-W
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on August 6, 1997, hold a duly
noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said application for a Site Development
Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Coastal Development Permit; and
WHEREAS, on August 6, 1997, the Carlsbad Planning Commission did, after
hearing and considering all evidence and testimony of all people desiring to be heard adopted
Resolutions No. 4142, 4143, 4 144 and 4145, approving a Negative Declaration, Site
Development Plan Amendment (SDP 90-05(C)), Conditional Use Permit Amendment (CUP 90-
03(A)) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP 97-05) to construct and operate an automatic
gasoline station within the Costco parking lot; and
WHEREAS, on the 21st day of October , 1997,
the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law
to consider said Negative Declaration, Site Development Plan Amendment, Conditional Use
Permit Amendment and Coastal Development Permit and at that time received
recommendations, objections, protests, comments from all persons interested in or opposed to
SDP 90-05(C)/CUP 90-03(A)/CDP 97-05; and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the City Council APPROVES City Council Resolution No. 97-648 , and
that the findings of the Planning Commission in Resolution Nos. 4142, 4143,
4 144 and 4145, on file with the City Clerk, and incorporated herein by reference,
constitute the findings of the City Council in this matter.
3. That the City Council APPROVES City Council Resolution No. 97-648 ,
and that the conditions of approval of the Planning Commission in Resolution
Nos. 4143,4144, and 4145, on tile with the City Clerk, and incorporated herein
by reference, constitute the conditions of approval of the City Council in this
matter.
4. That the application for a Site Development Plan Amendment (SDP 90-05(C)),
Conditional Use Permit Amendment (CUP 90-03(A)) and Coastal
Development Permit (CDP 97-05) to allow the construction and operation of an
automatic gasoline station for Costco members on property generally located
south of Palomar Airport Road, between Armada Drive and Paseo de1 Norte in
LFMP 5 is approved as shown in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4142,
4 143, 4 144 and 4 145 on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by
reference.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad
City Council held on the 21st day of October 1997, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Finnila, Nygaard, Kulchin, and Hall
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN : None
CLAUDE A! LEWK,
ATTEST:
n
ALETHA L. RAUTENKEMNZ, City Clkrk
(SEAI.
-3-
, /
EXHIBIT 2
, ,
PRICECOSTCO GASOLINE
SDP 90=05(C)/CUP 90=03(A)/
CDP 97-05 G
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4142
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ITS ADDENDUM TO
ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF AN
AUTOMATIC GASOLINE STATION WITHIN THE EXISTING
PRICE CLUB PARKING LOT LOCATED AT THE SOUTH
SIDE OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, BETWEEN ARMADA
DRIVE AND PASEO DEL NORTE IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 5.
CASE NAME: PRICECOSTCO GASOLINE
CASE NO.: SDP 90-05K)KUP 90-03(A)/CDP 97-05
WHEREAS, Costco Wholesale, Inc. “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Costco Wholesale, Inc.,
“Owner”, described as
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 17542, filed in the Offke of the County
Recorder on June 27,1995, in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California,
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 6th day of August, 1997, 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:
A) 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 July 11, 1997, and “PII” dated June 30, 1997 and its addendum
according to Exhibit “Z”, dated July 25, 1997 and the Planning Directo;‘s
I I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
determination of Prior Environmental Compliance with the MEIR with regard to
cumulative air quality and circulation, all attached hereto and made a part hereof,
based on the following findings:
Findings:
1.
2.
3.
The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a
significant impact on the environment.
There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significantly affected
by this project.
The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and
considered the Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein identified for this
project and any comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project. Based on the EIA
Part II and comments thereon, the Planning Commission finds that there is no
substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment and
thereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration and its addendum.
4.
5.
The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the independent
judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
a. The Planning Director has found that, based on the EIA Part II, this Subsequent
Project was described in the MEIR 93-01 as within its scope; AND there will be
no additional significant effect, not analyzed therein; AND that no new or
additional mitigation measures or alternatives are required; AND that therefore
this Subsequent Project is within the scope of the prior EIR; and no new
environmental document nor Public Resources Code 2 108 1 findings are required.
b. The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to this
Subsequent Proj,ect have been incorporated into this Subsequent Project.
PC RESO NO. 4142
.,.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
..a
. I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2(
21
2:
2:
2f
2:
2t
2:
21
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of August
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
1
:I: Chairperson Nielsen, Commissioners Compaq Heinz
Savary and Welshons
NOES: Commissioner Monroy
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
f / :,
t 1
ROBERT NIELSEN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOLZMLER
Planning Director
997, by the
nan, Noble,
PC RESO NO. 4142 -3-
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location:
Project Description:
South side of PaIomar Airport Road, between Paseo de1 .Norte and
Armada Drive in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego.
Construction and operation of an automatic fueling facility for
Price Club members within a portion of the existing Price Club
parking lot. ! .
The City of Carlsbad has oonducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Michael Grim in the Planning Department at
(760) 438-l 161, extension 4499.
DATED: JULY 12,1997
CASE NO: SDP 90-05(C)/CUP 90-03(A)/CDP 97-05
CASE NAME: PRICECOSTCO GASOLINE
PUBLISH DATE: JULY 12,1997
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576 - (619) 438-11610 FAX (Gl 9) 438-0894 Id
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: SDP 90-05(C)/CUP 90-03/CDP 97-05
DATE: JUNE 30. 1997
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: PriceCostco Gasoline
2. APPLICANT: Costco Wholesale. Inc.
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 999 Lake Dr., Issaquah, WA 98027
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Februarv 27.1997
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction and operation of an automatic fueling facilitv for Price
Club members within a portion of the existing Price Club parking lot. located south of Palomar
Airport Road, between Paseo de1 Norte and Armada Drive.
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.
c] Land Use and Planning q Transportation/Circulation q Public Services
[7 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources Q Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems c] Energy & Mineral Resources [7 Aesthetics
cl Water
0 Air Quality
Cl Hazards cl Cultural Resources
cl Noise Cl Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96 II
I ’ DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
cl
cl
0
lxl
q
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this 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. A Negative
Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in and pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to those earlier including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore,
a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
Planner Signature
. 7-9-97
Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
-
. ’ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
a A brief expltiation 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.
l “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.
l “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
l “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
a Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but &I potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
0 When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been 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.
0 A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03128196 13
l If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
l An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
I ,
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a>
b)
4
4
9
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#l, pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18; #2, pg 7)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l, pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18; #2, pg 7)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l, pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18; #2, pg 7)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or fkmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#1, pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18; #2, pg 7)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l, pgs %6-l - 5.6- 18;#2, pg 8)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed offkial regional or local
population projections? (#l, pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6;#2, pg 8)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infiastmcture)? (#l, pgs 5.5-l -
5.5-6; #2, pg 8)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l, pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6; #2, pg 8)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
a>
b)
c)
4
4
f)
s>
h)
0
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (#l, pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15; #2, pg 6)
Seismic ground shaking? (#l, pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (# 1, pgs
5.1-I - 5.1-15; #2, pg 6)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#I, pgs 3. l-l -
5.1-15; #2, pg 6)
Landslides or mudflows? (#l, pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15; #2,
pg 6) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
Subsidence ofthe land? (#1, pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15; #2, pg
6) Expansive soils? (#l, pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15; #2, pg 6)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#l, pgs 5.1-l -
5.1-15; #2, pg 6)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
4
b>
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#I, pgs 5.2- 1 - 5.2-
14; #2, pg 6) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#I, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-14; #2, pg 6)
5
Potentially
Significant Impact
cl
cl
0
0
0
Cl
0
cl
0
0
cl
Cl
El
cl
cl
0
Cl
cl
cl
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0
cl
0
cl
cl
Cl
cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
cl
0
0
cl
cl
Cl
cl
cl
0
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
cl
Cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
0
0
Cl
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
q
cl Cl
cl
cl
No
Impact
lx
lxl
IXI
IXJ
(x1
(x1
lxl
txl
Ix]
El El
Ea
Ix1
lx
!a
IXI (XI
(XI
El
/ I , Rev. 03128196 /f
I ’ Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
c>
4
e)
0
Ii9
h)
9
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#I, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-14; #2, pg 6)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#l, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l 1; #2, pg 6)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-14; #2, pg 6)
Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (#l, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-l 1; #2, pg 6)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (#I,
pgs5.2-1 -5.2-11;#2,pg6)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l, pgs 5.2-l - 5.2-
ll;Gpg6) . .
Substantial reduction in:the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l, pgs
5.2-l - 5.2-l 1; #2, pg 6)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#I, pgs 5.3-
1 - 5.3-12; #2, pg 6)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to poIIuta.nts? (#l, pgs 5.3-l
- 5.3-12; #2, pg 6)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#l, pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12;#2, pg 6)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l, pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12; #2,
pg 6)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
4
b)
c)
4
e>
f)
8)
proposal result in: .
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l, pgs
5.7-l - 5.7-22; #2, pgs 8,9)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l, pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22; #2, pgs
899) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#l, pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22; #2, pgs 8,9)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#I,
pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22; #2, pgs 8,9)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (#l,
pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22; #2, pgs 8,9)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#l,
pgs 5.7-l - 5.7-22; #2, pgs 8,9) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l, pgs 5.7-I -
5.7-22; #2, pgs 8,9)
Potentially Significant
Impact
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
III
0
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
cl
Cl
0
El
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
Cl
0
Cl
cl
Less Than NO Significan Impact
t Impact
III Ix)
q Ix)
cl El
CL lxl
cl El
0’ IXI
cl El
cl
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
txl
Ix1
El
El
ia
lzl
El
txl
El
6 Rev. 03128196
. ’ Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
a)
b)
cl
d)
e)
VIII.
a>
b)
cl
in impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (#l, pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24; #2, pg 7)
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#I,
pgs 5.4- 1 - 5.4-24; #2, pg 7)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l, pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24; #2,
Pg 7) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l, pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24; #2, pg 7)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#I, pgs 5.4-
1 - 5.4-24; #2, pg 7)
ENERGY AND MINBRAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (#l,
pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5; #2, pg 7)
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#I, pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5; #2, pg
7) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? (#l, pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5;
a Pg 7)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a)
b)
c)
4
e>
A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (#l, pgs 5.10.1-I - 5.10.1-3;
#& pg 81 Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#.I, pgs 5.10.1-I -
5.10.1-3; #2, pg 9)
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l, pgs 5.10.1-I - 5.10.1-3; #2, pg 8)
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l, pgs 5.10.1-I - 5.10.1-3; #2, pg 8)
Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#I, pgs 5.10.1-I - 5.10.1-3; #2, pg 8)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l, pgs 5.9-I - 5.9-
15; #2, pg 8) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l, pgs
5.9-l - 5.9-15; #2, pg 8)
Potentially
Significant Impact
0
cl
cl
cl
Cl
cl
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
El
cl
cl
cl
cl
Cl
cl
cl
III
cl
cl
cl
cl
Cl
cl
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
cl
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
q
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
0
No
Impact
txl
lz
El
lxl
El
lz
El
E3l
Ix1
Ix1
lx
Ix]
lxl
IXI
IXI
7 Rev. 03/28/96
-
. ’ Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
a)
b)
c> 4
e)
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
Fire protection? (#I, pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6; #2, pg 7)
Police protection? (#I, pgs 5.12.5-l-5.12.5-6;#2, pg 7)
Schools? (#l, pgs 5.12.7-I - 5.12.7-5; #2, pg 7)
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (#l,
pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7; #2, pg 7)
Other governmental services? (#l, pgs 5.12.1-I -
5.12.8-7; #2, pg 7)
XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
a>
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g>
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas? (#I, pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.1-5; #2,
Pg 7) Communications systems? (#l, pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.8-7-
5; #2, pg 7) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l, pgs 5.12.2-l - 5.12.3-7-5; #2, pg 8)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l, pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7; #2,
ix 8) Storm water drainage? (#l, pgs 5.12.2-l - 5.12.3-7; #2,
ix 8) Solid waste disposal? (#1, pgs 5.12.4-I - 5.12.4-3; #2,
pg 8) Local or regional water supplies? (#I, pgs 5.12.2- 1 -
5.12.3-7; #2, pg 8)
XIII. . AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect?
c> Create light or glare?
XIV.
4
b)
c>
4
e>
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l, pgs 5-130 - 5-
131;#2,pg7)
Disturb archaeological resources? (#l, pgs 5-130 - 5-
131; #2, pg 7)
Affect historical resources? (#l, pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10; #2,
Pg 7) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#I, pgs
5.8-l - 5.8-10; #2, pg 7)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#I, pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10; #2, pg 7)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
cl
0
cl
cl
0
0
cl
0
cl
cl
0
0
Cl
0
cl
0
0
cl
cl
cl
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
cl q cl 0
cl
cl
0
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl cl 0
cl
0
0
0
cl
Less Than Signifkan
t Impact
0
0
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
cl
0
0
0
0
0
No
Impact
IXI
Ix]
lxl
El
lxl
txl
El
Ix1
Ix1
lzl
IXI
El
IXI
IXJ
IXI
IXI
lz
lz
El
Ix1
8 Rev. 03/28/96 18
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
XV.RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significan impact Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l, pgs 5.12.8- 1 - 0 q 0 El
5.12.8-7; #2, pg 9)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#1, pgs
5.12.8-l - 5.12.8-7; #2, pg 9)
c] cl q lx
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the cl cl cl
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the 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?
0 cl cl
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, 0 0 cl
either directly or indirectly?
IXI
lx
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis has been conducted on two occasions. First was through the Master
Environmental Impact Report for the 1994 General Plan Update (MEIR 93-Ol), which reviewed
the potential impacts of buildout. of the City’s General Plan, including transportation and air
quality impacts. Second was the Conditional Negative Declaration for the original Price Club
store (SDP 90-05), which reviewed the potential impacts of development on the Price Club site.
Since the project involves the construction and operation of a gas station within an existing
commercial parking lot , the potential impacts in the areas of land use and planning, population
and housing, regional and local transportation and circulation, biological resources, energy and
mineral resources, hazards, public services, utilities and service systems and cultural resources
have also already been discussed and addressed in the Master Environmental Impact Report.
Therefore, with regard to these potential impacts, there will be no additional significant effects
due to this development that were not analyzed in the MEIR and no new or additional mitigation
measures or alternatives are required. All feasible mitigation measures identified in the previous
MEIR which are appropriate to this project have been incorporated into the project.
9 Rev. 03l28196
’ The potential impacts to visual aesthetics of the proposed automatic gas station were not fully
addressed in the previous environmental reviews, therefore these potential impacts are analyzed
in this environmental review.
DISCUSSION ‘OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The proposed Price Club gas station project would involve the construction and operation of an
automatic fueling station exclusively for Price Costco members. The station would be located
within the existing parking lot and would involve no new disturbance of the surrounding
vegetation or topography. The existing drainage system for the Price Club parking lot would be
enhanced to accommodate the potential gasoline runoff and the hours of operation would be
limited to the operating hours of the Price Club warehouse. The additional traffic generated by
the project would total approximately 1,280 daily trips, which represents only a 16 percent
increase. According to traffic studies, the daily peak traffic generation for the gas station would
not conflict with the existing peak traffic periods on Palomar Airport Road. Therefore, no
significant environmental impacts are anticipated with the proposed Price Club gas station
project.
AESTHETICS
The proposed Price Club gas station will be visible from the residential areas to the south and
slightly visible from Palomar Airport Road as it will be constructed in the middle of the existing
parking lot. The project has been designed to reduce visual impacts by maintaining the canopy
below the existing berm along Palomar Airport Road, augmenting the existing landscaping to
provide additional screening, and operating the gas station only during while the Price Club
warehouse is open which keeps nighttime lighting impacts to a minimum. Therefore, no
significant visual impacts will result from the proposed project.
AIR CXJALITY:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the
San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minim& the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
10 Rev. 03128196
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-O 1, 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.
CIRCULATION:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased traf5c volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely
impacted by regional through-t&% over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include 1)
measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to
develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks,
pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation
strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to
control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either
been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional, related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
11 Rev. 03/28/96 22)
EXHIBIT “Z”
JULY 251997
ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed gasoline station would involve an increased .traffic generation of
1,280 average daily trips. The effect of this increase in traffic generation was
analyzed, considering current and buildout conditions. Buildout conditions
included the traffic generation from the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan and the
adjacent Carl’s Jr. drive thru restaurant.
CHANGE IN IMPACTS :.
Based upon the traffic analysis, there will be no significant change in impacts.
All existing street and traffic control improvements will be adequate to serve the
anticipated 1,280 ADT increase in traffic, both under current conditions and at
buildout of the City, including development of the nearby Carlsbad Ranch
Specific Plan and Carl’s Jr. restaurant.
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4143
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A SITE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. SDP 90-05(C) TO
ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN AUTOMATIC
GASOLINE STATION FOR COSTCO CUSTOMERS ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF PALOMAR
AIRPORT ROAD, BETWEEN ARMADA DRIVE AND PASEO
DEL NORTE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE
5.
CASE NAME: PRICECOSTCO GASOLINE
CASE NO.: SDP 90-05(C)
WHEREAS, Costco Wholesale Inc., “Developer”, has filed a verified application
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Costco Wholesale Inc., “Owner”,
described as
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 17542, filed in the Offrce of the County
Recorder on June 27,1995, in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Site Development
Plan Amendment as shown on Exhibits “A” - “E” dated August 6, 1997, on file in the Planning
Department, Site Development Plan Amendment SDP 90-05(C) as provided by Chapter 21.06
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 6th day of August 1997, 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, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Site Development Plan Amendment.
WHEREAS, on May 21, 1991, the City Council approved, SDP 90-05 - Price
Club, as described and conditioned in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3209; and
a3
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
WHEREAS, on April 3, 1996, the Planning Commission approved, SDP 90-
05(A) - Price Club Expansion, as described and conditioned in Planning Commission
Resolution No. 3913;
WHEREAS, on March 19,1997, the Planning Commission approved, SDP 90-
05(B) - Price Club Property Adjustment, as described and conditioned in Planning
Commission Resolution No. 4605; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Site Development Plan Amendment, SDP 90-05(C) -
PriceCostco Gasoline, adds the proposed development to the existing approvals and exhibits
without adjusting any previously approved conditions.
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.
W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission APPROVES Site Development Plan, SDP 90-05(C) based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
FindinPs:
1. That the requested use is properly related to the site, surroundings and environmental
settings, is consistent with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, will
not be detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the area in which
the proposed use is to be located, and will not adversely impact the site, surroundings or
traffic circulation, in that the proposed gas stations is located in the northeast corner
of the property so as to not produce any onsite parking or circulation impacts, is
ancillary to the regional commercial use of the Price Club, is adequately screened
from public views and does not produce excessive light.
2. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in
that the proposed gasoline islands, pump, canopy, fuel tanks, landscaping, automatic
controller and other safety devices can fit within the existing parking lot without
disrupting the existing internal circulation or diminishing parking below that
allowed by the Zoning Ordinance.
PC RESO NO. 4143 -2- . a4
.
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
3. That all 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, in that the proposed gas station would be in the northern
portion of the site to utilize the existing berm near Palomar Airport Road for
screening, additional landscaping is conditioned to be added upon canopy
completion if deemed necessary by the Planning Director, and the hours of
operation are restricted to reduce nighttime and early morning lighting impacts on
neighboring residential areas.
4. That the street systems serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic
generated by the proposed use, in that the proposed gasoline station will generate
approximately 1,280 average daily vehicle tips and the submitted traffic report
indicates that Palomar Airport Road can accommodate this traffic while still
maintaining an acceptable level of service.
5. The Planning Commission finds that the project is in conformance with the Elements of
the City’s General Plan, based on the following:
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
Land Use - a gasoline station that is ancillary to the Price Costco warehouse is
consistent with the land use designation of Regional Commercial and the
proposed development includes landscaped parking areas and the use of
harmonious architecture between the Price Costco warehouse and gas station
canopy;
Circulation - despite the reduction in parking supply, the proposed gasoline
station project still provides safe, adequate and attractively landscaped
parking areas;
Housing - in accordance with Program 4.1 of the Housing Element, the non-
residential project is conditioned to declare that the City may determine that
certain non-residential project may have to pay a linkage fee, in order to
found consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan;
Open Space and Conservation - the proposed overflow drainage system, with
alarm and automatic shut-off, and the existing NPDES elimination system
provides a buffer between the urban pollutants produced on site and the
adjacent natural drainage area;
Public Safety - the proposed gasoline station will be constructed in
accordance with the seismic design standards of the Uniform Building Code
and state building requirements;
Parks and Recreation - the payment of park-in-lieu fees for non-residential
development with LFMP Zone 5 provides for future park lands in the area.
PC RESO NO. 4143 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the
applicable local facilities management plan and all City public facilities policies and
ordinances since:
a. The project has been conditioned to ensure the building permits will not be issued
for the project unless the District Engineer determines that sewer service is
available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service
remains available, and the District Engineer is satisfied that the requirements of
the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have’ been met insofar as they
apply to sewer service for this project.
b. Park-in-lieu fees are required as a condition of approval.
C. All necessary ‘public improvements have been provided or are required as
conditions of approval.
d. The Developer has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate
condition to pay a public facilities fee. Performance of that contract and payment
of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be available
concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
7. The project has been conditioned to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new
construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional
requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to
Chapter 2 1.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of
public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project.
8. This project has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the
Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 5.
Conditions:
1. The Planning Commission does hereby APPROVES the Site Development Plan
Amendment for the project entitled PriceCostco Gasoline (Exhibits “A” - “E” dated
August 6, 1997 on file in the Planning Department and incorporated by this reference,
subject to the conditions herein set forth). Staff is authorized and directed to make, or
require Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Site Development
Plan Amendment documents, as necessary, to make them internally consistent and in
conformity with final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as
shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development substantially different from
this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
2. The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
3. The Developer shall provide the City with a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar copy of the
Site Plan as approved by the final decision making body. The Site Plan shall reflect the
PC RESO NO. 4143 -4- 53b
. r
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
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
conditions of approval by the City. The Plan copy shall be submitted to the City
Engineer and approved prior to building, grading, final map, or improvement plan
submittal, whichever occurs first.
Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the
District Engineer determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of application
for such sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of occupancy.
The Developer shall pay the public facilities fee adopted by the City Council on July 28,
1987, (amended July 2, 1991) and as amended from time to time, and any development
fees established by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 2 1.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Code or other ordinance adopted to implement a growth management system or Facilities
and Improvement Plan and to fulfil1 the subdivider’s agreement to pay the public
facilities fee dated April 14, 1997, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk and is
incorporated by this reference. If the fees are not paid, this application will not be
consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project will be void.
This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
as part of the Zone 5 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to
that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits, including, but not limited to the
payment of non-residential park in-lieu fees.
If any conditions for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the
payment of and fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this
project are challenged this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code
Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be
invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies
with all requirements of law.
Approval of SDP 90-05(C) is granted subject to the approval of CUP 90-03(A) and CDP
97-05. SDP 90-05(C) is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission
Resolutions No. 4144 and 4145 for CUP 90-03A) and CDP 97-05.
Approval of SDP 90-05(C) supplements the approvals of SDP 90-05, SDP 90-05(A)
and SDP 90-05(B). All conditions of approval of Planning Commission Resolutions
No. 3209, 3913 and 4605, dated April 3, 1991, April 3, 1996 and March 19, 1997,
respectively, remain in full force and effect except as modified herein.
Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a six-foot high masonry wall with gates
pursuant to City standards. Location of said receptacles shall be approved by the
Planning Director. Enclosure shall be of similar colors and/or materials to the project to
the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
An exterior lighting plan including parking areas shall be submitted for Planning Director
approval. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on
adjacent homes or property.
37 PC RESO NO. 4143 Cy, -5-
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
.21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
No outdoor storage of materials shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief. In
such instance a storage plan will be submitted for approval by the Fire Chief and the
Planning Director.
The Developer shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan in conformance with
the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the City’s Landscape Manual. The plans
shall be submitted to and approval obtained from the Planning Director prior to the
approval of the final map, grading permit, or building permit, whichever occurs first. The
Developer shall construct and install all landscaping as shown on the approved plans, and
maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and
debris. Upon completion of the gas station canopy, the Planning Director may, if
deemed necessary for visual aesthetics, require additional landscaping beyond that
included in the plan, or the relocation of said landscaping.
The first submittal of detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be accompanied by the
project’s building, improvement, and grading plans.
The Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of a uniform sign
program for this development prior to occupancy of any building.
Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings
so as to be plainly visible from the street or access road; color of identification and/or
addresses shall contrast to their background color.
The Developer is aware that the City is preparing a non-residential housing impact fee
(linkage fee) consistent with Program 4.1 of the Housing Element. The applicant is
further aware that the City may determine that certain non-residential projects may have
to pay a linkage fee, in order to be found consistent with the Housing Element of the
General Plan. If a linkage fee is established by City Council ordinance and/or resolution
and this project becomes subject to a linkage fee pursuant to said ordinance and/or
resolution, then the Developer, or his/her/their successor(s) in interest shall pay the
linkage fee. The linkage fee shall be paid at the time of issuance of building permits,
except for projects involving a request for a non-residential planned development for an
existing development, in which case, the fee shall be paid on approval of the final map,
parcel map or certificate of compliance, required to process the non-residential PUD,
whichever pertains. If linkage fees are required for this project, and they are not paid, this
project will not be consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project will
become null and void.
Approval of SDP 90-05(C) is granted subject to the condition that the gas station
will be attended by a Costco employee during at least 80% of the operating hours.
EnPineerine:
19. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site
within this project, the developer shall submit to and receive approval from the City
PC RESO NO. 4143 a8
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
Engineering for the proposed haul route. The developer shall comply with all conditions
and requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the hauling operation.
20. The developer shall pay all current fees and deposits required.
21. The development shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The developer shall provide best
management practices as reference in the “California Storm Water Best Management
Practices Handbook” to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge
to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer.
Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of
the following:
a. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with
established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and
hazardous waste products.
b. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil,
antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such
fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain
or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides,
herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet
Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective
containers.
C. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants
when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements.
22. The site plans of the building permit shall include design and specifications for the
following:
a. The emergency alarm/shutoff system and drainage connection to the existing
oil filter/clarifyer on the south boundary of Price Club parking lot. The
drainage connection shall incorporate the primary oil separator and
petroleum alarm. A shutoff drainage connection and a capacity holding tank
shall be included as par t of this design.
b. The reconstruction, redesign and resigning of the Price Club parking lot.
23. The structural section for the access aisles must be designed with a traffic index of 5.0 in
accordance with City Standards due to truck access through the parking area and/or aisles
with an ADT greater than 500. The structural pavement design of the aisle way shall be
submitted together will required R-value soil test information and approved by the City as
part of the building site plan review.
24. To the greatest extent possible, the delivery of fuel shall not be scheduled during the
permitted hours of operation to reduce onsite congestion.
PC RESO NO. 4143 29 -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
25. The developer shall provide an acceptable means for maintaining the private
drainage and emergency fuel shutoff (and alarm system) for this project prior to the
issuance of building permits. The maintenance program and any amendments
thereto shall be approved by the City Engineer.
II Water District:
26. The entire potable water system, reclaimed water system and sewer system shall be
evaluated in detail to ensure the adequate capacity, pressure and flow demands can be II met.
27. The developer shall be responsible for all fees, deposits and charges which will be
collected before and/or at the time of issuance of the building permit. The San Diego
County Water Authority capacity charge will be collected at issuance of application for
meter installation.
II 28. Sequentially, the developers engineer shall do the following:
a. Meet with the City Fire Marshal and establish the tire protection requirements.
Also obtain a GPM demand for domestic and irrigations1 need from appropriate
parties.
b. Prepare a colored reclaimed water area use map and submit to the Planning
Department for processing and approval.
C. Prior tot he preparation of sewer, water and reclaimed water improvement plans, a
meeting must be scheduled with the District Engineer for review, comment and
approval of the preliminary system layouts and usages (i.e., GPM-EDU).
29. The project is approved on the expressed condition that building permits will not be
issued for development of the subject property unless the water district serving the
. development determines that adequate water service and sewer facilities will continue to
be available until time of occupancy.
II
General:
30. If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to
revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny or further condition issuance of all
future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy
issued under the authority of approvals herein grated; institute and prosecute litigation to
compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No
vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City’s approval of
this Site Development Plan Amendment.
II . . .
II PC RESO NO. 4143 -8- . 30
. .
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
Code Reminders:
31. The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspections fee as required by
Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of August 1997, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Nielsen, Commissioners Compas, Heineman, Noble,
Savary and Welshons
NOES: Commissioner Monroy
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ROBERT NIELSEN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
v MICHAEL J. HOLZMKLER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4143 -9- 31
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4144
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW
THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF AN
AUTOMATIC GASOLINE STATION FOR COSTCO
MEMBERS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, BETWEEN
ARMADA DRIVE AND PASEO DEL NORTE IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5.
CASE NAME: PRICECOSTCO GASOLINE
CASE NO.: CUP 90-03(A)
WHEREAS, Costco Wholesale, Inc., “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Costco Wholesale, Inc.,
“Owner”, described as
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 17542, filed in the Offke of the County
Recorder on June 27,1995, in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California,
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Conditional Use
Permit Amendment as shown on Exhibits “A” - “E” dated August 6, 1997, on file in the
Carlsbad Planning Department Conditional Use Permit Amendment CUP 90-03(A), as
provided by the conditions of approval of CUP 90-03 and Chapter 21.42 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 6th day of August 1997, 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, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to CUP 90-03(A).
33,
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
WHEREAS, on May 21, 1991, the City Council approved CUP 90-03, as
described and conditioned in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3210.
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
APPROVES the Conditional Use Permit Amendment CUP 90-03(A), based on
the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findinw:
1. 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 specifically permitted in the zone in which the
proposed use is located, in that the proposed gas station is located in the northeast
corner of the property so as to not produce any onsite parking or circulation
impacts, is ancillary to the regional commercial use of the Price Club, is adequately
screened from public views and does not produce excessive light.
2. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in
that the proposed gasoline islands, pump, canopy, fuel tanks, landscaping, automatic
controller and other safety devices can fit within the existing parking lot without
disrupting the existing internal circulation or diminishing parking below that
allowed by the Zoning Ordinance.
3. That all 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, in that the proposed gas station would be in the northern
portion of the site to utilize the existing berm near Palomar Airport Road for
screening, additional landscaping is conditioned to be added upon canopy
completion if deemed necessary by the Planning Director, and the hours of
operation are restricted to reduce nighttime and early morning lighting impacts on
neighboring residential areas.
4. That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic
generated by the proposed use, in that the proposed gasoline station will generate
approximately 1,280 average daily vehicle trips and the submitted traffic report
indicates that Palomar Airport Road can accommodate this traffk while still
maintaining an acceptable level of service.
PC RESO NO. 4144 -2- 33
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
Conditions:
1. The Planning Commission does hereby APPROVES the Conditional Use Permit
Amendment for the project entitled PriceCostco Gasoline (Exhibits “A” - “E“ dated
August 6, 1997 on file in the Planning Department and incorporated by this reference,
subject to the conditions herein set forth.) Staff is authorized and directed to make, or
require Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Conditional Use
Permit Amendment documents, as necessary,’ to make them internally consistent and in
conformity with final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as
shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development substantially different from
this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
2.
3.
The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
: .
Approval of CUP 90-03(A) is granted subject to the approval of SDP 90-05(C) and CDP
97-05. CUP 90-03(A) is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission
Resolutions No. 4143 and 4145 for SDP 90-05(C) and CDP 97-05.
4. This Conditional Use Permit is granted for a period of five (5) years from August 6,
1997 to August 6,2002. This Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Planning
Director on a yearly basis to determine if all conditions of this permit have been met and
that the use does not have a substantial negative effect on surrounding properties or the
public health and welfare. If the Planning Director determines that the use has such
substantial negative effects, the Planning Director shall recommend that the Planning
Commission, after providing the permittee the opportunity to be heard, add additional
conditions to reduce or eliminate the substantial negative effects. This permit may be
revoked at any time after a public hearing, if it is found that the use has a substantial
detrimental effect on surrounding land uses and the public’s health and welfare, or the
conditions imposed herein have not been met. This permit may be extended for a
reasonable period of time not to exceed five (5) years upon written application of the
permittee made no less than 90 days prior to the expiration date. The Planning
Commission may not grant such extension, unless it finds that there are no substantial
negative ‘effects on surrounding land uses or the public’s health and welfare. If a
substantial negative effect on surrounding land uses or the public’s health and welfare is
found, the extension shall be denied or granted with conditions which will eliminate or
substantially reduce such effects. There is no limit to the number of extensions the
Planning Commission may grant.
5. Approval of CUP 90-03(A) supplements the approval of CUP 90-03. All conditions
of approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3210, dated April 3, 1996,
remain in full force and effect, except as modified herein.
. . .
PC RESO NO. 4144 -3- 34
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of August 1997, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Nielsen, Commissioners Compas, Heineman, Noble,
Savary and Welshons
NOES: Commissioner Monroy
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ROBERT NIELSEN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
V MICHAEL J. HOLZtiLER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4144 -4- 35
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4145
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. CDP 97-05 FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF AN
UNMANNED GASOLINE STATION ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT
ROAD BETWEEN ARMADA DRIVE AND PASEO DEL
NORTE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5.
CASE NAME: PRICECOSTCO GASOLINE
CASE NO.: CDP 97-05
WHEREAS, Costco Wholesale, Inc., “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Costco Wholesale, Inc.,
“Owner”, described as
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 17542, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder on June 27,1995, in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California,
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal
. Development Permit as shown on Exhibits “A” - “E“ dated August 6, 1997, on file in the
Planning Department, Coastal Development Permit CDP 97-05 as provided by Chapter
21.201.040 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 6th day of August, 1997, 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, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to CDP 97-05.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
31
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
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
APPROVES Coastal Development Permit CDP 97-05, based on the following
Findinps:
findings and subject to the following conditions:
1. That the proposed development is in conformance with the Certified Local Coastal
Program and all applicable policies in that no agricultural lands, environmentally
sensitive habitats, shoreline access, coastal erosion or visual panoramas are located
on the proposed gas station site or involved with the project.
Conditions:
1. The Planning Commission does hereby APPROVES the Coastal Development Permit
for the project entitled PriceCostco Gasoline (Exhibits “A” - “E“ dated August 6, 1997
on file in the Planning Department and incorporated by this reference, subject to the
conditions herein set forth.) Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require
Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Coastal Development Permit
documents, as necessary, to make them internally consistent and in conformity with final
action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown in the approved
Exhibits. Any proposed development substantially different from this approval, shall
require an amendment to this approval.
2. Building permits shall be issued for this project within two (2) years of approval or
this coastal development permit will expire unless extended per Section 21.201.210
of the Zoning Ordinance.
PC RESO NO. 4145 -2- 37
4
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 6th day of August, 1997, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Nielsen, Commissioners Compas, Heineman, Noble,
Savary and Welshons
NOES: Commissioner Monroy
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ROBERT NIELSEN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
-- MICHAEL J. HOLZMIHER
~ Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4145 -3- 3 8
.--
EXHIBIT 4 Pne City of CARLSBAD Planning Departmem
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No. 5 0
Application complete date: April 18, 1997
P.C. AGENDA OF: August 6,1997 Project Planner: Michael Grim
Project Engineer: Clyde Wickham
SUBJECT: SDP 90-05(C)/CUP 90-03(Al/CDP 97-05 - PRICECOSTCO GASOLINE -
Request for a Site Development Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit
Amendment and Coastal Development Permit for the construction and operation
of an automated gasoline station for Costco members, located on the south side of
Palomar Airport Road, between Armada Drive and Paseo de1 Norte in Local
Facilities Management Zone 5.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4142,
APPROVING the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director, and ADOPT Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 4143, 4144 and 4145, APPROVING a Site Development Plan
Amendment SDP 90-05(C), Conditional Use Permit Amendment CUP 90-03(A) and Coastal
Development Permit CDP 97-05, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained
therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
The proposal involves the construction and operation of an automated gasoline station,
exclusively for Costco members, within the existing Price Club parking lot. The station includes
three pump islands covered by a canopy and an automated controller located within a landscaped
parking island. The gasoline would only be available during operating hours of the Price Club
warehouse and activities would be monitored from within the main Price Club building.
Amendments to the existing Site Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit for the Price
Club are required to add the proposed conditional use to the existing site and a Coastal
Development Permit is needed for development in the Coastal Zone. The project conforms to all
applicable regulations and staff has no issues with the proposal.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Costco Wholesale, Inc. is requesting approval of a Site Development Plan Amendment,
Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Coastal Development Permit to allow the construction
and operation of an automated gasoline station at their existing site on Palomar Airport Road and
Armada Drive. The station would be located in the northeast corner of the parking lot, just south
of the existing vacant commercial pad. As shown on Exhibit “A”, dated August 6, 1997, the
access to the Price Club property would remain unchanged and the gas station would be accessed
off the.main entrance drive. Adjacent to the proposed gas station site are Palomar Airport Road
’ SDP 90-05(C)/CUP 90-03(4/CDP 97-05 - PRICECOSTCO GASOLINE
AUGUST 6,1997
to the north, Price Club warehouse and parking to the west, a vacant Planned Industrial site to the
east and a natural drainage area to the south. The proposed improvements can fit within the
existing site and no expansion into adjacent areas is necessary.
The Price Club site has been reviewed by the Planning Commission/City Council on three
previous occasions. First was the original approval in May 2 1, 199 1, which included the 12 1,000
square foot Price Club building and associated parking and loading areas, a graded pad on Paseo
de1 Norte for a future 15,000 square foot office building and a graded pad on Palomar Airport
Road for a 5,000 square foot retail building. In April, 1996, the Price Club received a Site
Development Plan Amendment to add 12,200 square feet of interior space to the existing
warehouse for meat and deli preparation, bakery and additional sales display areas. Most
recently, on March 19, 1997, the Planning Commission approved a boundary adjustment to the
western portion of the site to facilitate the adjacent Carl’s Jr. project’s site design.
The current proposal involves an automated gasoline station, with three pump islands covered by
a 17.5 foot high canopy with lighting. The architecture of the canopy would match the existing
Costco warehouse building with its aggregate and brick materials. Also included in the proposed
development would be three underground fuel tanks, an automatic controller enclosure and
landscaping. The pumps must be activated each morning prior to pumping and all operations at
the station are monitored by video camera from inside the Costco warehouse. A phone link is
also provided to assist customers, however only members and employees of Costco can use the
station. The hours of operation would be limited to the same operating hours of the Costco
warehouse to reduce the opportunity for vandalism or unattended fuel spillage. In the event that
fuel does leak, floor drains would catch the rnnoff and direct it to pretreatment areas before
entering the storm drain system. Alarms installed on the drains would alert Costco employees
that a spill had occurred and automatically shut off the pumps.
To accommodate the gas station within the existing parking lot, 87 of the existing parking spaces
would be removed. Fortunately, the number of spaces in the Price Club parking lot is well over
that required by code and, based on site visits, the area proposed for the gas- station is
underutilized. With the proposed reduction, the parking supply on the site would total 810
spaces. The warehouse requires 5 13 spaces and the vacant pad on Palomar Airport Road could
require up to 60 spaces. Therefore, adequate parking remains after the proposed deletion of
spaces for the gas station improvements. Some of the parking lot islands also need to be
redesigned to accommodate the gas station and fuel truck delivery circulation and the
landscaping within those islands would be replaced in the new islands.
The PriceCostco Gasoline project is subject to the following regulations:
A. General Plan;
B. Local Coastal Program (Mello II segment and its implementing ordinances);
C. C-2-Q - General Commercial Zone with a Qualified Development Overlay
(Chapters 2 1.28 and 2 1.06 of the Zoning Ordinance);
40
-.
. ‘SDP 90-05(C)/CUP 90-03@)/CDP 97-05 - PRICECOSTCO GASOLINE
AUGUST 6,1997
D. Conditional Use Ordinance (Chapter 21.42 of the Zoning Ordinance);
E. Growth Management Ordinance (Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance);
F. Zone 5 Local Facilities Management Plan.
IV. ANALYSIS
The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project’s
consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. The following analysis
section discusses compliance with each of these regulations/policies utilizing both text and
tables.
General Plan
TABLE 1 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
ELEMENT USE CLASSIFICATION, GOAL, PROPOSED USES AND COMPLIANCE OBJECTIVE OR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS
Land Use Site is designated for Regional Gasoline station ancillary Yes
Commercial land uses. to existing regional retail
warehouse use.
Commercial developments should Parking lot is adequately
provide landscaped parking lots and landscaped and gas station
canopy matches existing Yes
use harmonious architecture between
buildings. warehouse building.
Circulation
Housing
Provision of safe, adequate and
attractively landscaped parking
facilities.
Achieve a balance between jobs and
housing appropriate to those wages.
Reduction of parking does
not lower site to less than
minimum required.
Project is conditioned with
standard non-residential
affordable housing linkage
fee.
_ Yes
Yes
Open Space Require adequate buffers between Existing NPDES system
Conservation development and environmentally and new spillage alarms
sensitive habitats. with automatic shut-offs Yes
ensure storm water quality.
Public Safety Design all structures in accordance Gasoline station canopy
with the seismic design standards of and tanks designed in
the UFX and State building conformance with all Yes
requirements. seismic design standards.
‘SDP 90-05(C)/CUP 90-O~(A)/CDP 97-05 - PRICECOSTCO GASOLINE
AUGUST 6,1997
PAGE 4
TABLE 1 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
ELEMENT
Parks and
Recreation
USE CLASSIFICATION, GOAL,
OBJECTIVE OR PROGRAM
To finance future public park and
recreation facilities.
PROPOSED USES AND
IMPROVEMENTS
Project is conditioned to
pay non-residential park
in-lieu fee for Zone 5.
COMPLIANCE
Yes
B. Local Coastal Program
The Price Club site lies within the Mello II segment of the City’s Coastal Zone and is subject to
the corresponding land use policies and implementing ordinances. These policies and ordinances
emphasize topics such as preservation of agriculture and scenic resources, protection of
environmentally sensitive resources, provision of shoreline access, and prevention of geologic
instability and erosion. The site is currently developed as a parking lot with landscaping on
which no agricultural or environmentally sensitive lands exist on site. The proposal does not
include grading therefore the grading provisions in the Mello II land use policies do not apply.
Since the project site is located 1.3 miles from the nearest water body (Pacific Ocean), no
shoreline development regulations apply. No scenic resources exist on or near the
topographically depressed site. Therefore, the PriceCostco Gasoline project is consistent with
the Mello II land use policies and the applicable implementing ordinances.
C. C-2-Q - General Commercial Zone with Qualified Development Overlay
The Price Club property is zoned C-2-Q and therefore subject to the provision of those zoning
designations. The restrictions contained in the C-2 - General Commercial zone deal mostly with
uses, however there are standards regarding building height and placement on the lot. The
maximum building height allowed in the C-2 zone is 35 feet to the peak of the roof while the
proposed gas station canopy measures only 17.5 feet to the top of the roof. The building
placement standards in the C-2 zone apply only when the property is adjacent to residential
property, which is not the case for the proposed gas station. The Qualified Development Overlay
zone does not contain any specific development standards but does allow the Planning
Commission to increase any standards or impose special conditions that may be deemed
necessary. The project is conditioned to provide additional landscaping upon completion of the
canopy if necessary to augment the existing screening of the landscaped berm and parking lot
landscaping.
While not contained in the C-2 zoning requirements, a discussion of the parking requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance and the project’s conformance is appropriate in this section. The proposed
gas station development would remove 87 parking spaces from the existing 897 space parking
lot. The amount of parking required by the Parking Ordinance (Chapter 21.44 of the Zoning
Ordinance) for the entire PriceCostco operation, including warehouse, retail, food service and
office is 5 13 spaces. In addition, there is a vacant pad at the southwest corner of Palomar
Airport Road and Armada Drive that would require some of the parking in the PriceCostco
parking lot. The original approval for the Price Club site planned for a maximum 5,000 square
.’
. SDP 90-05(C)/CUP 90-03(A)/CDP 97-05 - PRICECOSTCO GASOLINE
AUGUST 6,1997
PAGE 5
foot retail use on this vacant pad. Assuming, for the purposes of parking needs assessment, that
the future use would be a restaurant, the future parking requirement for the vacant pad would be
60 spaces. The proposed parking supply of 810 spaces more than accommodates the required
5 13 spaces for PriceCostco and the maximum 60 spaces needed for future development on the
vacant pad. Given the above, the proposed gas station conforms to the requirements of the C-2-
Q zone.
D. Conditional Use Ordinance
Since the project involves the placement of a gasoline station in a commercial zone, a
Conditional Use Permit is required pursuant to Section 21.42.010(7) of the Zoning Ordinance.
The four findings required for a Conditional Use Permit address compatibility and harmony of
the use with the project site and its existing and future surroundings. The proposed gas station
would be located in the northeast comer of the existing Price Club parking lot so as to not
produce traffic circulation or parking impacts. The station and underground tanks would still be
over 80 feet from the adjacent vacant commercial pad, and separated by intervening landscaping
and circulation aisles. The canopy height is lower than the existing berm along Palomar Airport
Road, and additional landscaping would be planted around the station to lessen public view
impacts from the arterial. Since the project would generate only 1,280 average daily traffic trips,
the submitted traffic report indicates that Palomar Airport Road can accommodate this traffic
while still maintaining an acceptable level of service.
Section 21.42.010(7) states that automobile service stations may only be allowed in conjunction
with master planned areas, freeway-service facilities, or regional or community shopping centers.
This section of the Zoning Ordinance also contains several development requirements of service
stations, including landscaping, shielding of exterior lighting, enclosed trash containers and full
public improvements as necessary. The proposed gas station is operated in conjunction with the
Price Club, which is a regional shopping use. As shown on Exhibits “A” - “E”, dated August 6,
1997 and in the conditions of approval for the project, all required development standards and
public improvements are, or are conditioned to be, in place prior to occupancy. Therefore the
proposed PriceCostco Gasoline project is consistent with the Conditional Use Ordinance.
E. Growth Management Ordinance
Since the PriceCostco Gasoline project involves no residential uses, many of the facilities
regulated by the Growth Management Ordinance are not affected. Table 3 below shows the
project’s compliance with the applicable Growth Management facility requirements.
TABLE 3 - GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE
SDP 90-05(C)/CUP 90-03(A$CDP 97-05 - PRICECOSTCO GASOL~I’JE
AUGUST 6,1997
II TABLE 3 - GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE II
Standard
Waste Water Treatment
Parks
Drainage
Circulation
Fire
Open Space
Schools
Sewer Collection System
Water
COm:!r zimpacts/Standards )
PLDA C
1,280 ADT
Yes
Yes
;;i ,MonNo.' 1
3 EDU
660 GPD
Yes
Yes
F. Zone 5 Local Facilities Management Plan
The PriceCostco Gasoline site is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 5. There are
no special development conditions in the zone plan that apply to the non-residential project
except for the requirement for a 40 cents per square foot park-in-lieu fee. The project is
conditioned to pay this fee at time of building permit issuance. In addition, the gas station
proposal is conditioned to pay the appropriate public facilities fee as well as being conditioned to
conform to all current and future requirements of the Zone Plan. The PriceCostco Gasoline
project is therefore in conformance with the Zone 5 Local Facilities Management Plan.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Earlier analysis of development on the Price Club property has been conducted on two occasions.
First was through the Master Environmental Impact Report for the 1994 General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-Ol), which reviewed the potential impacts of buildout of the City’s General Plan,
including transportation and air quality impacts. Second was the Conditional Negative
Declaration for the original Price Club store (SDP 90-05), which reviewed the potential impacts
of development on the Price Club site.
Since the project involves the construction and operation of a gas station within an existing
commercial parking lot, the potential impacts in the areas of land use and planning, population
and housing, regional transportation and circulation, biological resources, energy and mineral
resources, hazards, public services, utilities and service systems and cultural resources have also
already been discussed and addressed in the Master Environmental Impact Report. Therefore,
with regard to these potential impacts, there will be no additional significant effects due to this
development that were not analyzed in the MEIR and no new or additional mitigation measures 44
‘SDP 90-05(C)/CUP 90-O~(A)/CDP 97-05 - PRICECOSTCO GASOLINE
AUGUST 6,1997
or alternatives are required. All feasible mitigation measures identified in the previous MEIR
which are appropriate to this project have been incorporated into the project.
The potential impacts to visual aesthetics and local circulation from the proposed automatic gas
station were not fully addressed in the previous environmental reviews, therefore these potential
impacts were analyzed through the current environmental documentation, including the EIA
addendum. Upon review of the canopy development and proposed landscaping, the Planning
Director determined that no significant adverse environmental impacts would result from the
proposed development and, therefore, issued and duly noticed a Negative Declaration on July 11,
1997. No comments were received during the public review period.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4 142
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4 143
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4144
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4145
Location Map
Disclosure Statement
Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
Background Data Sheet
Exhibits “A” - “E”, dated August 6, 1997.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant’s statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all
applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City
Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee.
The following information must be disclosed:
1. APPLICANT
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the
application.
2. OWNER
List the names and addresses of all’ persons having any ownership interest in the
property involved.
‘ze PnrcE @Q/+&by /Rkr /‘>p, .c . ,b’E
dh C6S7CO b+w/jotrSALE
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership,
list the names and addresses of a!l individuals owning more than 10% of the shares
in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. -
4. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a
trust, list the names and addresses of any person serving as officer or director of
the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the trust.
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad. CA 92009-1576 - (619) 438-71610 FAX (619) 438-0894 63
5. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of
City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve
(12) months?
cl Yes II? No If yes, please indicate person(s):
Person is defined as ‘Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club,
fraternal organitation, corporation, estate;trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city
and county, city ,municipality, district. or other ,political subdivision or any other group or
combination -acting..as a unit.”
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
n \ -
I - p (’ /y-.&-q
Signature of owner/date f applicant/date
TIK ‘PRIa5 @o/w?$#/v\/ .
Print or type name of owner
Javw z. /LAG,, mwnl ,g,+wy
Print or tyf$ name of applicant
Disclosure Statement 10196 Paqe 2 of 2
, 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: PriceCostco Gasoline - SDP 90-05(C)/CUP 90-03(A)/CDP 97-05
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 5 GENERAL PLAN: R - Regional Commercial
ZONING: C-2-O - General Commercial with Oualified Develonment Overlay
DEVELOPER’S NAME: Costco Wholesale, Inc.
ADDRESS: 999 Lake Dr. Issaouah, WA 98027
PHONE NO.: 206-3 13-63 12 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 21 l-040-35
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 0.67 acres
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: October, 1997
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
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 =
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADTs =
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. =
Open Space: Acreage Provided =
Schools:
(Demands to be deterrnined by staff)
Sewer: Demands in EDUs
Water: Demand in GPD =
The project is not a residential project.
N/A
N/A
3 EDU
N/A
N/A
PLDA C
1.280 ADT
No.4 -
N/A
CUSD
3 EDU
660 GPD
. ”
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
APPLICANT:
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
SDP 90-OYCYCUP 90-03(A)/CDP 97-05
PriceCostco Gasoline
Costco Wholesale, Inc.
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Construction and operation of an automatic gas station for
Costco members within the existing Price Club parking lot.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 2 of Parcel Man 17542, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder on June 27, 1995, in the Citv of Carlsbad, Countv of San Diego, State of California.
APN: 21 l-040-35 Acres: 14.8 Proposed No. of Lots/Units:
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
N/A
Land Use Designation: Regional Commercial (R)
Density Allowed: N/A Density Proposed: N/A
Existing Zone: C-2-O Proposed Zone: C-2-O
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning
Requirements)
Zoning Land Use
Site C-2-Q Costco Warehouse
North O-S Flower fields
South O-S Open Space
East L-C Vacant pad
West R-P Retail nursery
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 3 EDU
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated: April 14. 1997
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
lz Negative Declaration, issued Julv 11, 1997
cl Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
0 Other,
EXHJ8lT 5
5. SDP 90-M(Cl/CUP 90-03(AWDP 97-05 - PRICE-COSTCO GASOLINE, A request for a Site
Development Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Coastal Development
Permit for the construction and operation of an automated gasoline station for Costco members,
located on the south side of Palomar Airport Road, between Armada Drive and Paseo del Norte in
Local Facilities Management Zone 5.
Chairperson Nielsen announced that the Commission’s action on this item is final and it will not be
forwarded to the City Council unless it is appealed within ten (10) calendar days.
Project Planner Michael Grim presented the staff report and described the project as follows: This is a
request for a Site Development Plan Amendment, a Conditional Use Permit Amendment, and a Coastal
Development Permit to allow the Costco Warehouse to add a gas station to the services currently
available, on-site, to their members exclusively. The station with be located in the eastern part of the site
proximate to the main entrance and the vacant pad. Staff feels this is the best possible location for
circulation as well as for parking. The proposed station will have three (3) automated pump islands
* PLANNING COMMISSION August 6, 1997 Page 8
covered by a 17.5 foot high canopy. The architecture of the canopy would match the existing building and
the pumps will activated every morning when the warehouse opens. There will be video monitoring by
assigned individuals from inside the warehouse, various safety mechanisms installed as well as a drain
that will go directly into the current NPDES pollutant elimination system. Therefore staff feels that all
hazardous materials will kept under control. The proposed gas station would eliminate eighty-seven (87)
parking spaces. However, as is detailed in the written staff report, there are more than enough parking
spaces in the Costco parking lot to meet the code requirements and staff feels that the elimination of some
parking is not an issue. A condition has been added for staff to go to the site during the construction of
the canopy with the intent to place occasional trees or shrubs to block any visual aesthetics issues that
were not addressed with the original landscape plan. Staff has found this request to be consistent with the
General Plan, the Local Coastal Program and all of the applicable zoning, codes, and regulations and
therefore staff is recommending approval of this project as presented.
Commissioner Monroy, referring to a copy of a traffic report, questioned the validity of the report by
pointing out that the report states that by the year 2000, traffic will have decreased rather than increased,
and asked how that is possible since it does not include the traffic that will be generated by the Carl’s Jr.
restaurant.
Principal Civil Engineer, Bob Wojcik, stated that he has discussed this issue with the applicant’s Traffic
Engineer, Mr. John Borman, who was available to fill in the details.
Commissioner Monroy further stated that his concern is that according to the Carlsbad Ranch Traffic
Study, it was projected that traffic at the intersection of Armada Dr., and Palomar Airport Road would
reach 81% in the p.m. peak hours. He further pointed out that because the traffic is growing much faster,
he is concerned that there will be another intersection next to Paseo del Norte and Palomar Airport Road
also failing and there is no way of knowing of how close it is getting to capacity.
Mr. Wojcik explained that part of the reason for that is because the existing traffic on Palomar Airport
Road is nearing what it is projected to be at build-out. The reason for that is that at build-out Cannon
Road and additional east/west connector roads will be available to take some of the traffic off of Palomar
Airport Road, which explains why the traffic volumes appear to be close to build-out at this time.
Commissioner Monroy asked that Mr. Borman explain the differences between existing conditions, which
vary more than 20%, and the conditions when the traffic study was done for the Carl’s Jr. Restaurant, on
March 18, 1997. Commissioner Monroy also questioned the accuracy of the projections.
Commissioner Heineman asked if parking spaces are going to be eliminated, with one function after
another, until they approach the minimum numbers of spaces required.
Mr. Grim stated that “filling stations” do not require any parking spaces and this station will effectively be
removing eighty-seven (87) spaces bringing the total down to 810 spaces still available. He added that
having a Conditional Use Permit on the property for the gas canopy and the food mart, allows the City to
review it every year. Consequently, if upon review there is a parking issue, even though it meets the
code, staff can recommend that the Planning Commission deny any additional square footage requested
to be added.
Commissioner Savary asked how many parking spaces will be required by the future restaurant.
Mr. Grim stated that in the original Site Development Plan, 5,000 square feet of retail space was set aside.
If a restaurant occupied the site it would require sixty (60) spaces.
Commissioner Welshons, referring to Page 10 of the Environmental Evaluation, Paragraph 1, Line 8,
quoted as follows: “According to traffic studies, the daily peak traffic generation for the gas station would
not conflict with the existing peak traffic periods on Palomar Airport Road”, and asked what the peak
MINUTES 5-1
. PLANNING commission August 6,1997 Page 9
periods for the gas station are as opposed to the peak periods for Palomar Airport Road.
Mr. Wojcik responded by stating that the peak period for the gas station will be between 4:00 p.m. and
500 p.m. and the peak period for Palomar Airport Road is between 4:45 p.m. and 5:45 p.m., and there will
be an overlapping period of fifteen (15) minutes between 4:45 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Referring to Resolution No. 4143, Page 3, Finding No. 4, LI . . . Palomar Airport Road can accommodate
this traffic while still maintaining an acceptable level of service”, Commissioner Welshons asked if
Commissioner Monroy’s prior questions were in reference to the submitted report.
Mr. Wojcik stated that he believed they were.
Commissioner Welshons went on to ask if her understanding of Commissioner Monroy’s questions
indicated that whoever developed that report was only looking at two different areas and not considering
the impact; that the consultant that wrote the submitted report only looked at the south side of Palomar
Airport Road and did not look at Carltas property on the north side of Palomar Airport Road.
Mr. Wojcik’s response was negative.
With reference to Health & Safety concerns, Commissioner Welshons asked if she would be correct in
stating that there will be no human face attached to this project and Mr. Grim replied that her statement is
correct. Further, regarding the video monitor, Commissioner Welshons asked if there would be someone
watching the monitor constantly or just sporadically, from inside the warehouse.
Mr. Grim stated that the way it was explained to him is that the video monitor will be behind the main desk
and constantly attended. In addition, there are telephone services at the canopy that are directly
connected with a cellular phone held by the individual monitoring the gas station.
Referring to Resolution No 4143, Page 3, Finding No. 5(e) Public Safety, Commissioner Welshons asked
what would happen if someone is in need of a restroom and what would happen if there is a crime being
committed. She further asked if the person monitoring sees something happening, what is the response
time to get from the warehouse building out to the gas station. How are they going to get there? Are they
going to run, use a golf cart, etc?
Mr. Grim replied that staff had been told that the person responsible would be on foot and the response
time would be approximately three (3) minutes.
Commissioner Welshons, referring to the elements of the City’s General Plan under Public Safety, asked if
the City is only concerned about seismic safety or also concerned about human safety, in terms of other
areas.
Mr. Grim stated that he had found a statement that says that, ’ . . .people should use desiltation and
pollutant basins to function as hazardous material spill control facilities to prevent the spread of
contaminates to downstream areas.” Mr. Grim went on to state that this would be another form consistent
with the Public Safety element.
Commissioner Welshons queried Mr. Grim about crime and public safety.
Mr. Grim stated that most of the areas covered by the public safety element of the General Plan deal with
prevention programs. He stated that most of the comments received from the police department deal
with either security devices on the doors to discourage vandalism and break-ins, and adequate lighting
and visibility. In this case the security, for the most part, is going to be self-monitored by customers. Mr.
Grim added that staff feels that the gas station should only be open during the Costco Warehouse’s
regular hours of operation to ensure a higher volume of people thereby discouraging illegal actions.
MINUTES 33
. FANNING COMMISSION
I
August 6,1997 Page 10
Regarding the condition requiring fuel deliveries to be made after the regular hours of operation,
Commissioner Welshons, questioned why the condition does not address “before” hours.
Mr. Grim stated that staff has prepared an amendment to that condition that might read as follows: ’ . . . to
the greatest extent possible, the delivery of fuel shall not be scheduled during the permitted hours of
operation to reduce on-site congestion.” That would also presume that the off-loading operation would be
done by the time the gas station is opened for business.
Commissioner Compas asked if Price-Costco has similar, installations in other cities and if so, what has
been their experience.
Mr. Grim responded by stating that to his knowledge, there is one in Oxnard and some in Arizona, and
they are similar to the one proposed for Carlsbad. He further stated, that according to a citizen, the
Arizona facilities have experienced some circulation problems because they are very popular.
Commissioner Compas asked Mr. Grim if he has any concerns with the way the traffic flows through this
property.
Mr. Grim replied that there is a good queuing area in that the facility has been designed so that the pumps
are far enough apart so as to allow the passage of other vehicles around those vehicles at the pumps. He
further stated that it is his understanding that the Arizona stations do not have that spacing.
Commissioner Heineman asked how many fuel trucks, per day, are likely to be delivering fuel.
Mr. Grim responded that he would not expect more deliveries than a standard gasoline station and would
probably average less than one delivery per day.
Commissioner Welshons pointed out that the CUP makes reference to the fact that, “approval of this CUP
is based on the SDP and approval of all conditions contained therein”, and asked if staff will bring the SDP
back or does the CUP stand alone.
Mr. Grim stated that they would not, effectively, bring the SDP back. However, all the operational
conditions that are in the SDP are part of the monitoring. He further stated that if or when a monitoring
reminder is received, staff would look at the entire file including the CUP, the SDP, and the CDP, and
check all exhibits and conditions to make sure they are all being met. Mr. Grim continued by stating that it
might be wise to add a new condition to Planning Commission Resolution No. 4144 (because this CUP is
actually supplementing the original CUP No. 90-03) which would read as follows: “Approval of CUP No.
90-03(A) supplements the approval of CUP No. 90-03. All conditions of approval of Planning Commission
Resolution No. 3210, dated April 3, 1996, remain in full force and effect except as modified herein.” He
further pointed out that the original CUP did not have an expiration date or a monitoring program.
Commissioner Welshons asked what the original CUP was for.
Mr. Grim replied that the original CUP was issued for the food concession on the property for a maximum
of six (6) tables, and since there was no monitoring program, staff has not been looking at the food area
as often as they probably should. However, he continued, once they found out that there are more than
six (6) tables, they immediately began looking into the situation. In summary, Costco will be required to
submit a CUP amendment within ten (10) working days and, if approved they will be allowed to maintain
the use of thirty (30) tables covering approximately 1800 square feet. In addition, if the CUP amendment
is approved, the applicant will be required to pay additional sewer fees and, based on the current fee
structure, the additional fees will amount to approximately $9,000. Also, the parking totals will have to be
adjusted.
MINUTES g.3
‘PLANNING COMMISSION August 6, 1997 Page 11
Mr. Grim stated that because there are no parking impacts with the existing non-conformity, staff feels
comfortable in recommending approval of this action.
Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Grim to clarify his proposal to add a new condition to Resolution No.
4144, to supplement CUP 90-03.
Mr. Grim referred to Resolution No. 4143, Page 5, Condition #9, and stated that this approval supplements
the previous approvals and all the conditions that were in the previous approval remain in full force and
effect, except as modified herein. The only modification to those previous approvals would be that now
the food/restaurant area is under an annual monitoring program and a five (5) year expiration date, with
renewals. In its original state, the CUP had no monitoring program or expiration date.
Commissioner Compas stated that there is an inconsistency in this application in reference to the true
name of the applicant. He pointed out that in some places it refers to Price-Costco, or Price Club, or
Costco Warehouse and asked if someone can verify the proper name.
Mr. Grim replied that the applicant’s representative is present and will answer that question during her
presentation to the Commission.
Commissioner Welshons asked if the additional food service area permit will be attached to the same five
(5) year time-line as the gas station.
Mr. Grim stated that by amending the food service CUP and saying “all conditions remain in full force
except as modified herein,” the six (6) tables (along with the additional twenty-four (24) tables) will be put
on a monitoring program and be given a five (5) year expiration date. In addition, the expiration date will
probably be made to match the expiration date of the CUP for the gas station.
Commissioner Heineman asked if all of the changes are being made to accommodate thirty (30) tables
being added into Resolution No. 4143.
Mr. Grim stated that staff had thought about doing that. However, because of noticing and other issues, it
could not be done. Therefore, staff is saying to the Commission that they realize there is a current
enforcement issue and the applicant has agreed to apply for a CUP amendment within ten (10) working
days to resolve that enforcement issue. Consequently staff feels comfortable going forward at this time,
after analyzing the risk, and bringing a separate CUP amendment before the Commission at a slightly later
date.
Kathy Nishihira, representing Costco Wholesale Corporation, 999 Lake Drive, Issaquah, WA., stated that
the true name is Costco Wholesale Corporation and all of the clubs are now Costco warehouses. Ms.
Nishihira stated that Costco wishes to offer gasoline to all of its customers at reduced prices and that
having gasoline stations will enhance the membership value. She stated that Costco currently has ten
(10) operating gas stations in six (6) different states. She further stated that the first two (2) in Tucson
and Scottsdale, Arizona, respectively, were not built with adequate spacing but they have learned a lot
since building them. Ms. Nishihira pointed out that the new stations have been designed with much wider
aisles between the islands and over 100 feet of stacking space which will accommodate over thirty (30)
cars. Ms. Nishihira clearly stated that the company wishes to make things work well thereby avoiding a
negative reflection on the rest of the operation of Costco. She pointed out that the proposed gas station
will not always be unattended as there is always someone present for problem management, it will be
constantly watched via the monitor, and there will be two (2) telephones at the islands that will directly
connect with a cellular phone inside the warehouse. She also stated that management feels it is a safer
system than most other self-serve stations, in that customers will not be required to leave their vehicles,
unattended, to pay for their fuel as they must do at the other stations. Ms. Nishihira further pointed out
that there will be no convenience sales facility in the station and no air or water. With regard to the fuel
tankers; Ms. Nishihira stated that there would be a tanker truck delivering fuel on an average of four (4) to
MINUTES d-4
-PLANNING COMMISSION August 6, 1997 Page 12
five (5) times per week. In an effort to clarify an earlier report, Ms. Nishihira stated that the problems they
have encountered in Arizona were a direct result of poor planning regarding the spacing between the
islands and the stacking space. The other problem, connected with stacking, is that one of the stations
has a driveway at each end of the property, on a main street, and as a result the station is much like any
corner gas station and not at all like the Carlsbad site. Part of the reason for the congestion, she added, is
that the price of gasoline was approximately fifteen (15) cents lower than normal prices at other stations.
Commissioner Compas asked if there are any facilities, currently in operation, similar to the one proposed
for Carlsbad and if so, have there been any safety problems?
Ms. Nishihira stated there is one in Spokane, WA and Oxnard, CA, and there have been absolutely no
safety problems.
Commissioner Welshons pointed out that this station is going to be located quite a distance from the main
building and asked if the other sites just mentioned are equally as far from their main buildings, what is the
response time for an employee to get from the main building to the station, and by what means does he or
she get there?
Ms. Nishihira stated that the response time would be approximately three (3) minutes and also pointed out
that in Carlsbad, the station is also in sight of the tire center and if necessary one of the tire center
employees could actually reach the station as fast or faster than someone from inside the warehouse.
She added that there is also an automatic cut-off switch at the island which, when pressed, shuts the
whole system down. Once again Ms. Nishihira pointed out that thus far, none of their stations have ever
been completely unmanned. There has always been someone there, especially during the peak hours of
the day.
Regarding the video monitor, Commissioner Welshons asked if the person assigned to monitor the station
is constantly watching the monitor and not just glancing at it sporadically.
Ms. Nishihira stated that the employees are supposed to be watching the screen at all times.
Commissioner Monroy asked if the fifteen (15) cent lower price is typical at their stations and Ms. Nishihira
replied that it is not typical and that their target price is six (6) cents lower than their competitors.
Commissioner Monroy asked if watching the monitor is the sole job of the person assigned to it or are they
expected to perform other duties?
Ms. Nishihira stated that it is not the sole function of the person assigned to monitor. However; she
added, while there is only one (1) person responsible for the station, all of the employees in the area
watch the monitor as well.
Commissioner Heineman asked if there will always be someone at the pumps to offer assistance to the
customers.
Ms. Nishihira replied that there would always be someone there or at the very least, someone in close
proximity.
Chairperson Nielsen, for clarification, asked if there would be a person at the pumps, physically, at all
times.
Ms. Nishihira replied that there would be a person, physically in attendance at the station, 80% of the time.
/
MINUTES a’d
PLANNING COMMISSION August 6, 1997 Page 13
Traffic Engineer, John Born-tan, from Linscott Law, and Greenspan Engineers, 8989 Rio San Diego Drive,
San Diego, stated that for many years the traffic generation rate for discount clubs was eighty (80) trips
per 1,000 square feet and about a year ago it was changed to sixty (60). He went on to point out that the
80 ADT was used when there were only two (2) Price Clubs in the San Diego area and now that there are
several more clubs, the concentration is not as great and has been revised to 60 ADT. Regarding how
much more traffic this project will add to Palomar Airport Road, Mr. Borman stated that the 1280 ADT
referred to in the staff report, assumes that every person using the station would go there only for gas and
not to shop in the warehouse. After a series of surveys, it was concluded that at least X of the traffic had
a combined destination of both the warehouse and the gas station and further concluded that the actually
number of trips is 640 and not 1280 as was originally thought. Mr. Borman added that of the 640 trips,
most of those people would be on Palomar Airport Road, regardless of the proposed station, and will stop
for gas because of the convenience. He further stated that, in his opinion, the number of trips will be
under 300 ADT. Regarding the existing volumes at the Costco (Price Club) driveway, Mr. Borman stated
that they did an actual count and determined that for the movements out of the Price Club, they are lower
and the impacts will not change at that intersection.
Commissioner Monroy asked why Mr. Borman’s firm did not include the traftic from the future Carl’s Jr.
Restaurant in their study and Mr. Borman replied that their study was done before the Carl’s Jr.
Restaurant project was introduced. He also pointed out that the Carl’s Jr. study took the Price Club traffic
into consideration.
Commissioner Monroy, referring to a variety of traffic reports dating back to 1974, asked Mr. Borman if he
could explain the many differences in the numbers of trips.
Mr. Borman stated that he could not comment because he does not know what the build-out level of
service is at this intersection. He did point out, however, that it is important to remember that the number
of peak hour trips that will be added, with the addition of this gas station, is under thirty (30).
Seeing no one else wishing to testify, Chairperson Nielsen closed Public Testimony.
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Welshons, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 4142, approving the Negative Declaration issued by
the Planning Director, and adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4143,
4144, and 4145, approving a Site Development Plan Amendment, SDP 90-05(C),
Conditional Use Permit Amendment, CUP 90-03(A), and Coastal Development
Permit, CDP 97-05, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions
contained therein, and including the changes to Condition #22 in Resolution No.
4143, the addition of a Condition #5 to Resolution No. 4144, referencing CUP 90-
03, and to correct the name to reflect the correct business title throughout the
documents.
Commissioner Monroy asked if the Commission would reconsider this item in an effort to tie up what he
considers to be loose ends, specifically the Tables, and pointed out that the Traffic Study is unsatisfactory.
He asked the Commission to consider continuing this project to a later date, in hopes there would be
more appropriate information available.
Commissioner Noble stated that there cannot be finite information regarding the year 2000 and beyond
because of roads that will exist then, that are not now in existence and that the information available at this
time is sufficient to warrant a vote at this time.
Commissioner Heineman asked if he is correct in his understanding that the “tables” issue will be
addressed in a different CUP, and was answered affirmatively.
“PLANNING COMMISSION August 6,1997 Page 14
Commissioner Savary asked if she is correct in her assumption that the reason for a CUP is to monitor the
traffic, conditions, and operations, and if any or all are not satisfactory, the Commission has the power to
change it. Mr. Grim replied that she is correct.
Commissioner Compas, referring to Commissioner Monroy’s suggestion for a continuance, asked Mr.
Wojcik is there would be enough additional information available with which to make a more informed
decision.
Mr. Wojcik stated that he does not believe that there would be any significant change in the report, taking
into account the Carl’s Jr. Restaurant, or modifying the ADT for the year 2000.
Chairperson Nielsen asked Mr. Grim if this Commission will see the modified CUP on the “tables” and, if
so, can they have the traffic data requested by Commissioner Monroy, at that time.
Mr. Grim stated that the Commission will see the modified CUP on the “tables” and, that staff will provide
Commissioner Monroy with the information he has requested.
Commissioner Welshons, regarding the physical presence of an employee 80% of the time, asked if the
applicant would be willing to extend that coverage to 100% of the time.
Commissioner Noble pointed out that Poinsettia Station has not had any security or safety problems and
has considerably more traffic than the Costco gas station will have. The rail station has roving security
patrols and video monitors and that coverage is working out just fine.
Commissioner Compas interpreted the application to say that physical coverage is not intended and that
only video monitoring will be used.
Commissioner Welshons asked that Public Testimony be re-opened to ask the applicant if they will
accept a condition to require them to have continuous coverage.
Chairperson Nielsen reopened Public Testimony and requested the applicant to approach the podium.
Ms. Nishihira, representing Costco Wholesale Corporation, stated that they would accept a condition that
would require them to have a person, at the islands, 80% of the time.
Seeing no one else wishing to testify, Chairperson Nielsen closed Public Testimony.
Commissioner Monroy stated that he cannot support the motion.
ACTION:
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Motion by Commissioner Welshons, and duly seconded, to amend the Main
Motion by adding a condition to SDP 97-01, of Resolution No. 4143, requiring that
a Costco representative shall attend the gas canopy during 80% of the operating
hours. 4-3
Nielsen, Monroy, Welshons, and Compas
Noble, Heineman, and Savary
None
Commissioner Monroy stated that he cannot support this project, citing what he considers to be a lack of
adequate information in the traffic studies.
‘7 MINUTES 3
PLANNING COMMISSION - . I August 6, 1997
MAIN MOTION:
VOTE: 6-1
AYES: Nielsen, Noble, Heineman, Savary , Welshons, and Compas
NOES: Monroy
ABSTAIN: None
Page 15
6195814964 PRICE ENTERPRISESINC F-945 T~298 P-881 CtCT 17 ‘97 15:54 J . PRICE ENrERPR8sEs, INC.
4649 Momna Blvd, San Diego, CA 92: I? a (619) 5614679 l FAX (Sl9)5814964
Octceer 17,1997
Mr. Ray Patch&t
City Manager
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carisbad Village Drive
Cartsbad, CA 92008-I 989
via FAX 760-720-9461
Dear Ray:
Good to see you again. The discussion Thursday, October 9,1997 was very
encouraging with regard to providing a 10.000 square foot family, sit-down styfe
restaurant on our site.
I was, however, disturbed to hear the message from Mike Grim on Friday morning,
October IO,1997 that atthough the use and parking can be accommodated on the site,
the square footage will be restricted to 5,000 square feet because of traffic generation
issues.
Your staff is sending contradictory messages. If traffic congestion on Palomar Airport
Road is a problem, how was staff able to recommend a negative declaration for the 17,000 square foot expansion to Costco and the Costco gasoline station? Why is our
pad the only pmject being restricted by additionai trips?
if this is staffs position, we will have to appear at the Cty Council hearing on October
21, 1997 to contest the staff recommendation. P!ease cafl me at (619) 5814973 to
discuss in more detail.
Sincerek ,ljiLapg
ack McGrorv
President and CEO
JM:nmv
rplu-10
PROOF OF PUBLIC ION
(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-
entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of
North County Times
formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudged newspapers of general circulation by the
Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of
California, under the dates of June 30, 1989
(Blade-Citizen) and June 21, 1974 (Times-
Advocate) case number 771349 (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:
October 10, 1997
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
San Marcos
Dated at California, this
of Oct. 1.997
10th day
, ‘,
,,- , I II.8 ,’ -; -- ,
----_--_--_----_____________ Signature
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
This space is .J the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of
Notice of Public Hearirlg -----__----___------------
COMPLETE DATE: Aprd l&l997
DESCRIFTION: Request for a Site Development Plan Amendment, ConditIonal Use Pernut Amendment and Coastal Development Permit for the constnut~on and operation of an automated gas&x station for Cortco members.
LOCATION: This pro.ect II w;hin the C~ry of Carlsbad’s Coastal Zone located on the south LI 4 e of Palomar Anport Road, between Armada Dnvc and Passeo del Norte m Local Facilities Management Zone 5.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 17542, filed in the Office of the County Recorder
Jifornia. on une 27, 1995. m the City of C&bad, Gxmty of San Dtego. State of
APPLICAND Costco Wholesale Inc., 999 Lake Dr.. Issaquah. WA 98027
A pubhc heanng on the above pro R” ed pmject will be held by the C&bad City Council m the Counal C ambers, 1200 C&bad Village Drive, C&bad. Califomm, on October 2.1. 199i. ar &CO p.m.
Persons are cord+ mwcd to attend the public hearing and provide the decision makers with any oral or wrmen comments they may have regardmg the project. The project wtll be described and a staff recommendation given. followed by public tertonony, questlow and a decision. Copws of the staff report will be available on or after October 17. 1997.
If you have any questions. or would bke to be notified of the decision, please contact Mike Grimm at the City of C&bad Plannm through Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 530 p.m., Friday 8: Deparnncnt. Monday I%! a.m. to 5:oo .m. at 2075 LasPalmas Drive, Carlshad, Cahforma 92009, (760) 43811161, extension 4499.
APPEALS
If you challen c! e Permit Amen the Site Development Plan Amendment, Conditional Use ment and/or Coastal Development Permit m court, you may be Iunited to rawng only those issues you or someone elm raised at the public heanng described in this notve, or in wntren cotrespondence delivered to the City of C&bad City Clerk’s Office pnor to the pubhc hearing.
1. Bpnulr to the tin, Where the decirlon 1s appealable to the City Council, appeals must be filed m writing within ten (IO) calendar days after a deanon by the Planrung Comows~on.
2. Coastal Commiwon Appealable Prolcct: Cl This ate 1s located wthm the Coastal Zone Appealable Area. 0 This site is not located wthin the Coastal Zone Appealable Area.
Where the dccwon IS a be filed wth the Coasta P pealable to the Coastal Commiwon, appeals nut CornmIssion withm ten ( 10) working days after the Coastal Commission has received a Nonce of Final Actton from the Ci of Carlsbad. Apphcants will be notified by the Coastal Conumss~on of the sy ate that their appeal period wrll conclude. The San Diego office of the Coastal Commission is located at 3111 Camom Del Rio North, Suite 200, San Diego, California 92108-1725.
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
PRICECOSTCOGASOLINE SOP eo-os(cycuP c4&03yy CCP s7-05
Legal 51129 October 10.1997
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
SDP 90-05KVCUP 90-03tAYCDP 97-05 - PRICE COSTCO GASOLINE
COMPLETE DATE: April 18, 1997
DESCRIPTION:
Request for a Site Development Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Coastal
Development Permit for the construction and operation of an automated gasoline station for Costco members.
LOCATION:
This project is within the City of Carlsbad’s Coastal Zone located on the south side of Palomar Airport Road,
between Armada Drive and Paseo de1 Norte in Local Facilities Management Zone 5.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 17542, filed in the Office of the County Recorder on June 27, 1995, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California.
APPLICANT:
Costco Wholesale Inc., 999 Lake Dr., Issaquah, WA 98027
A public hearing on the above proposed project will be held by the Carlsbad City Council in the Council Chambers, 1200
Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, on October 21, 1997, at 6:00 p.m.
Persons are cordially invited to attend the public hearing and provide the decision makers with any oral or written
comments they may have regarding the project. The project will be described and a staff recommendation given,
followed by public testimony, questions and a decision. Copies of the staff report will be available on or after October
17, 1997.
If you have any questions, or would like to be notified of the decision, please contact Mike Grim at the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, Monday through Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at 2075 Las
Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009, (760) 438- 1161, extension 4499.
APPEALS
If you challenge the Site Development Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit Amendment and/or Coastal
Development Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad City Clerk’s Office prior
to the public hearing.
1. Anneals to the Citv Council: Where the decision is appealable to the City Council, appeals must be filed in
writing within ten (10) calendar days after a decision by the Planning Commission.
2. Coastal Commission Appealable Project:
q This site is located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area. lxl This site is not located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area.
Where the decision is appealable to the Coastal Commission, appeals must be filed with the Coastal Commission within
ten (10) working days after the Coastal Commission has received a Notice of Final Action from the City of Carlsbad. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission of the date that their appeal period will conclude. The San Diego
office of the Coastal Commission is located at 3 111 Camino De1 Rio North, Suite 200, San Diego, California 92108- 1725.
PUBLISH: OCTOBER lo,1997
CITY OF CAIUSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
PRICECOSTCO GASOLINE
SDP 90=05(C)/CUP 90=03(A)/
CDP 97-05
FAX TRANSMISSION
DATE: October 3. 1997
TO: SUSAN LOY , NORTH COUNTY TIMES
FAX: 761-0908
FROM: Citv Clerk’s Denartment
PERSON PLACING AD: Sherrie Worrell. Deputv City Clerk
Phone: (760) 434-2800 X 5 107 FAX: (760) 434-1987
NAME OF AD: Notice of Public Hearing
PRICE COSTCO GASOLINE -
SDP 90-05 C/CUP 90-03(A)/CDP 97-05
PLEASE PUBLISH THE FOLLOWING:
Legal Ad X Display Ad
Account No. L-5386 Account No. 5386
lx TIME(S) IN THE:
Zone 3 (Carlsbad/La Costa) on Fridav. 1 O/l O/97
Size of Ad and/or Special Instructions:
3 x 5 - Simnle Border Ad with Citv Seal
**PLEASE CALL TO ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THIS AD**
760-434-2800 x 5 107
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive l Carlsbad, California 92008-1989 l (760) 434-2808
(F0r.n A)
.
TO: CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice
SDp go-05(c)/cup go-03(A)/CDP 97-05 - PriceCostco Gasoline
for a public hearing before the City Council.
Please notice the item for the council
.
Thank you.
Assistant City Man-- -
1
September 117, 1997
Oate
< SE+!!-30-97 TUE 14:19 CITY OF CARLSBAD CQMM DE FAX NO. 4380894 - P. 01
FAX TRAN,SMITTAL
September 30,1997 NUM13ER OF PACES REING TRANSMITTED:
(I?‘iCTXJlNNG FAX ‘l-EtANSMITTAL)
4
TIh4E SENT:
TO: Karen Kundtz FROM: Val Dinsmore ..“_ . ,. . ,.
COMPANY: City Clerk’s Of&z DEPT: PLANNMG
PHONE #: 2917 ’
FAX #: 434-l 987
PHONE #: (760) 438-l 161 ext. 4436
FAX #* (760) 4384894
SPECIAL INSTRWCTIONS:
..-.--._. ,, .._ _. _-
-- .,, I .,_-.,_,-
_ ..- i%7!5 Las Palmas Uf. l CArlsbad. &i’62068-157fi l (639) 438-1161 l FAX (619) 438-0894
,_ SEP30-97 TUE 14:19 CITY OF CARLSBAD CCMM DE FAX NC. 438Oj94 P. 02
/ I
DESCRIPTION:
COMPLETE DATE: April 18,1997
i
Recpst for a Site Development Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit Amunriment
and Coastal Dr;veIopment Petit for tie constrm.ction and operation of ~TI automated
gasoline station fnt Cmtco members.
LOCATION:
This project is within the City of C&bad’s Coasta Zrme IcmteA ox! rhe SC&I side of
Pslomar Airport Road, between Armada Drive and Paseo de1 Nor@ in Local Facilities
Managenlcnt Zone 5.
‘LEGAL U~SCKIy’TlON:
PanA 2 of Parcel Map 17542 filed in the Office of the County Recotde+ on June 27,
1995, in the City of Carkbad, County of San D&go, State of Califortia.
‘-.w-
APPLICANT:
Costca i%olesaIe Inc., 999 Lake Dr., Issaqu&, WA 98027
A public hearing on the alxwe proposed project will Ire held by the Plznning Commission in the
Council Charnbo~s, 1200 Carl&ad Vilhge Dr&c, Carlsbad, ~difhh, orI August 6, 1997 a% 6:OCl
p.m.
Persons are cordially invited to attend the public hcarin$ and prkdc the &c&n makers with
any oral or written comments they may have teg‘arding the projecl. The project will be described
and a staff recomrnendat~ion g~vcn, fol!oweCt by public testimony, questions and a decision.
Copies of the staff repopc will be avaikbls on or afkr .luly ?r) lm7.
i 1 ,I
1
If you have my q,ucstions, or would like tcr Ix notiiieri trf the decision, please contact Mike Grim
at the City of C&bad Planning Dqxutnled, Montlay through Thursday 7:30 am. to 5:3U p.m..
Friday 8:OO a.m. to 5:OO p.m. at 2075 Lm Palm~ls Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009, (760) 438-
1161, extension 4499.
‘L
. . .
. . .
. . . ‘(
. . .
2073 Las Palr’n~s Dr - Carfsbau, GA YZOOS-1576 l (619) 438-1161 l FAX (G~Q) &-CM94 Q9 I
f S&P-30-97 TlJE 14:20 CITY GF CARLSBAD COEIM DE FAX NO. 4380894 P. 03
If you challenge tic Sire Development PIan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit Amendment
ami/c~r Coastal Develqment Permit in court., you may be limited to rnising only those issues yuu
or someone else raised at the public hearing de-scribed in this notice, or in written correspondence
Joli~cd to LOG City of Carlsbti prior to the pmblk hearing.
I. Anneals to the Citv Council: Where the decision is appealable to the City Council,
appe& mtlst ba filed in wr&g within tan (10) caXcn&c Jq $ c&r a decision by I&
Planning Commission.
2, Coastal Commission Appenlahk Project!
c] This site is located within the Coast& Zone Apmablt: Area. q This sik is ILOL located withi,n the Coastal Zone Appealable Area.
Where the dwision is appealable to the Coastal Commission, appeals must be filed vIth the
Coastal Commission within ten (i0) working days a&r the Coastal, Conu~~&ic~~~ has raxived a
Notice of Final. Action from the City of Carfsbad. Applicants will be notified by the Coasti
~omm~ssmn of the date that their appeal period will conclude. The San Diega off&e of the
Coastal Commission is located at 3111 Cnmino De1 IXio Noti, Suite 3011, S:an Dicgo, C&for& 92108-1725.
CASE FILE: SDP 90-OS(C)/CUP 9043(A)KDP 9745
CASE NAME: PRTCE(--YKK.O GASOLINE
PUBLISH; WLY’ 24,1Y97
_- SW-30-97 TUE 14:2tI CITY OF CARLSBAD COMM DE FAX NO. 4380!94 P. 04
PRICECOSTCO GASOLINE
SDP QO-05(C)/CUP 90=03(A)/
CDP 97-05
CARLSBAD PROPERTIES INC 520 S VIRGIL AVE LOS ANGELES CA 90020
CARLSBAD RANCH CO 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS 13 CARLSBAD CA 92008
CORPORATE L CARLSBAD
1333 S KIRKWOOD RD D731
SAINT LOUIS MO 63122
CHILDRENS ROSE
ORCO CONSTRUCTION SUPPL 2100 RITCHEY STfS 92705
JACQUELINE CRIVELLO
501 W BROADWAY 1220
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
PRICE ENTERPRISES INC 4649 MORENA BLVD SAN DIEGO CA 92117
JCM TOM COMPANY 1524 DORCAS ST SAN DIEGO CA 92110
C B RANCH ENTERPRISES 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS 10 CARLSBAD CA 92008
CHRISTA M MCREYNOLDS 2316 CALLE CHIQUITA LA JOLLA CA 92037
JACQUELINE CRIVELLO
501 W BROADWAY 1220
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
PAUL & PEGGY HADLEY PO BOX 12727 PALM DESERT CA 92255
RICHARD WILLIAMS
PO BOX 177 SAN LUIS REY CA 92068
CARLBUS ASSOCIATES L P
5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS 10
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JAMES & DOROTHY GAISER
3340 RIDGECREST DR CARLSBAD CA 92008
TURPANJIAN SALES CORP 2080 WASHINGTON AVE TORRANCE CA 90501
RAY WINTER
PO BOX 290 DALLAS TX 75221
CARLSBAD RANCH CO
5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS 10 CARLSBAD CA 92008
AMERCO REAL ESTATE CO PO BOX 29046 PHOENIX AZ 85038
PAUL & PEGGY HADLEY PO BOX 12727 PALM DESERT CA 92255
GLASJAR FUNDING LP 1301 AVENUE OF THE AMER NEW YORK NY 10019
PRICE CO THE PO BOX 97077
KIRKLAND WA 98083
WINTER 1745 ROCKY RD FULLERTON CA 92831
DEALY PO BOX 5 SOLANA BEACH CA 92075
MULTI-
PO BOX 7576 STOCKTON CA 95267
OCCUPANT
6175 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT 925 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT
6125 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT 6100 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OCCUPANT 951 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
*** 5 Printed ***
CA COASTAL COMMISSION SD COUNTY PLANNING CA DEPT OF FISH & GAME
STE 200 STE B STE 50
3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NO 5201 RUFFIN RD 330 GOLDENSHORE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-1725 SAN DIEGO CA 92123 LONG BEACH CA 90802
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY BRD SANDAG
STE B . STE 800
9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD 401 BST
SAN DIEGO CA 92124-l 331 SAN DIEGO CA 92101
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST
801 PINE ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF CARLSBAD
WATER DISTRICT
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD
COYMUNITY SERVICES DEPT ENGINEERING DEPT PROJECT PLANNER
MIKE GRIM
October 24, 1997
Costco Wholesale, Inc.
999 Lake Drive
Issaquah, WA 98027
Re: Pricecostco Gasoline
The Carlsbad City Council, at its meeting of October 21, 1997, adopted Resolution No. 97-648,
approving the Negative Declaration, Site Development Plan Amendment, Conditional Use
Permit Amendment and Coastal Development Permit for the Price Costco Gasoline
development.
As a courtesy, please find a copy of Resolution No. 97-648 for your files.
Assistant City Clerk
KRK:ijp
Enclosure
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive - Carlsbad, California 92008-1989 0 (760) 434-2808 @