The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1997-12-02; City Council; 14455; Drive-Thru Restaurant ProhibitionI CITY OF &SBAD HOUSING & REDEVtLOPMENT COMMISSION AB# 1% &i MTG. I k-22- 97 DEPT. PLN DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT PROHIBITION ZCA 97-021LCPA 97-OWCA 97-03/LCPA 97-07 RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Planning Commission and Design Review Board are recommending that a Citywide prohibition on drive-thru restaurants not be established. If the City Council/Housing and Redevelopment Commission concurs, the recommended action is to DIRECT the City Attorney to prepare documents REJECTING the proposed Zone Code Amendments and Local Coastal Program Amendments. If the City Council/Housing and Redevelopment Commission wishes to establish a Citywide prohibition on drive-thru restaurants despite the recommendations made by the Planning Commission and Design Review Board, the recommended action is to DIRECT the City Attorney to prepare documents APPROVING the proposed Zone Code Amendments and Local Coastal Program Amendments. ITEM EXPLANATION: Based on the approval of Resolution No. 97-474 on June 3, 1997, by the City Council, staff prepared a Citywide drive-thru restaurant prohibition ordinance. To implement the Citywide prohibition, a zone code amendment and local coastal program amendment were prepared for the City’s Redevelopment area (ZCA 97-03/LCPA 97-07); and a zone code amendment and local coastal program amendment were prepared for the balance of the City (ZCA 97-02/LCPA 97-01). Collectively, these amendments would implement a Citywide prohibition on new drive-thru restaurants. On September 17, 1997, a joint public hearing was conducted with the City’s Planning Commission and Design Review Board to consider the above described amendments. The discussion that ensued is reflected on the attached minutes from the September 17 hearing. After receiving public testimony, the discussion concluded with both entities rejecting the proposal for a Citywide prohibition on drive-thru restaurants (Planning Commission vote was 2-4; DRB vote was O-3). The collective recommendation to the City Council is to not approve the proposed prohibition. Because it was a City Council initiated Resolution of Intention that started this process (with the June 3 approval of Resolution No. 97-474) this item is automatically being forwarded to the City Council despite the denial recommendations made by the Planning Commission and Design Review Board. The prohibition ordinance package reviewed by the Planning Commission and Design Review Board directly reflects the City Council’s action and vote of June 3, 1997 requesting staff to process a Citywide prohibition on drive-thru restaurants. If anything other than comprehensive Citywide prohibition is desired or requested by Council at this time, a revised project would need to be prepared by staff and presented to the Planning Commission and Design Review Board prior to returning to the City Council for final review. FISCAL IMPACT The only anticipated fiscal impact would be from staff time required to complete the processing of the entitlements involved including Coastal Commission processing of the related local coastal program amendments. PAGE 2 OF AGENL BILL NO. / ‘$ 6 55 L-4 EXHIBITS: 1. Design Review Board Resolution Nos. 257 and 258 2. Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 4163 and 4164 3. Planning Commission/DRB Staff Report dated September 17, 1997 4. Excerpts of Planning Commission/DRB Minutes dated September 17, 1997. 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 1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 257 A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM TO ESTABLISH A PROHIBITION ON DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANTS IN THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND LCP SEGMENT OF THE CITY’S COASTAL ZONE. CASE NAME: DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT PROHIBITION CASE NO: LCPA 97-07 WHEREAS, California State law requires that the Local Coastal Program, General Program, and Zoning designations for properties in the Coastal Zone be in conformance; and WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has filed a verified application for an amendment to the City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) for all properties located in the Village Redevelopment Segment of the LCP; and WHEREAS, said verified application, which proposes an amendment to the Village Master Plan and Design Manual, constitutes a request for a Local Coastal Program Amendment as shown on Exhibit “Z” dated September 17, 1997, attached hereto, and as shown in Section XI of Exhibit “X”, dated September 17, 1997, as attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 4163, hereby incorporated by reference (LCPA 97-07), as provided in Public Resources Code Section 30574 and Article 15 of Subchapter 8, Chapter 2, Division 5.5 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (the California Coastal Act Administrative Regulations); and WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 17th day of September 1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and I 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 C WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Board considered all factors relating to the Local Coastal Program Amendment. WHEREAS, State Coastal Guidelines requires a six week public review period for any amendment to the Local Coastal Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. W At the end of the State mandated six week review period, starting on July 24, 1997, and ending on September 4,1997. No public comments were received. c> That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of LCPA 97-07 based on the following findings, and subject to the following conditions: Findinps: 1. That the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment is consistent with all applicable policies of the Village Redevelopment segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, in that a change to the Village Master Plan and Design Manual is necessary to implement a Citywide prohibition on Drive-thru Restaurants. The proposed change will clearly designate drive-thru food service uses as a prohibited use throughout the Village Redevelopment area. 2. That the proposed amendment to the Village Redevelopment segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program is required to establish the drive-thru prohibition for this portion of the City. Conditions: 1. Approval and implementation of LCPA 97-07 is based on the approval of LCPA 97- 01, ZCA 97-02 and ZCA 97-03, including final Coastal Commission approvals. . . . . . . . . . DRB RESO NO. 257 -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 to the Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 17th day of September 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: None NOES: Chairperson Welshons, Board Members Marquez and Savary ABSENT: Board Members Compas and Scheer ABSTAIN: None KIM WELSHONS, Chairperson DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ATTEST: .- . 4 j ).& f&b‘, DEBBIE FOUNTAIN Acting Housing and Redevelopment Director DRB RESO NO. 257 -3- - EXHIBIT “2” September 17,1997 Section II Land Use of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual is amended by the replacement of a portion of the Land Use Chart, page 2-27 as attached. R c- c 2 s v 3 2 m .5 5 .- 3 z E E E v) 2 * eS U- E .Z .5 p p 5 .z = *- 3 z- < .u b z” .g % II x 3 i? s 8 a II < 3 a !s .e .s G 2 II 0 3 B -2 2 II l . . .z 2 u 43 ii iz z % % L * a * Q Y * Y X Y - L 5 a 5 P f u 7 )- i- . i- i t !- I- Y 1 3 > 4 , , > * * ! t ;rn E$ k$ 2” % f a Y x 0 Y x Y Y x 1 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 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 258 A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH A VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT PROHIBITION ON DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANTS. CASE NAME: DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT PROHIBITION CASE NO: ZCA 97-03 WHEREAS, the Planning Director has determined that a Zone Code Amendment to: Prohibit Drive-thru Restaurants as an allowed land use from all zoning districts in the City including all coastal zone properties and the Village Redevelopment area be prepared; and WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 17th day of September 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 Board considered all factors relating to the Zone Code Amendment; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review Board as follows: 4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Zone Code Amendment ZCA 97-03, according to Section XI of Exhibit “X”, dated September 17, 1997, attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 4163 and hereby incorporated by reference, hereby incorporated by reference, based on the following findings, and subject to the following conditions: FindinPs: 1. That the proposed Zone Code Amendment implements City Council Resolution No. 97-474 as approved on June 3,1997. B 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 - 2. That the proposed Zone Code Amendment will effectively establish a Citywide prohibition on Drive-tbru Restaurants in all zoning districts including the City’s coastal zone area and Village Redevelopment area. Such uses can have an adverse impact on public health, safety and welfare through potential cumulative traffic, noise, litter, aesthetic and air quality impacts. The proposed zone code amendment will also further promote the pedestrian oriented objectives of the Redevelopment area as contained in the Village Design Manual. 3. That the proposed Zone Code Amendment is consistent with the following implementing policies of the General Plan and Mitigation Measures of the Master EIR conducted for the General Plan Update of 1994 which are designed to de- empbasize motor vehicle use and other nuisance factors while empbasizing pedestrian circulation: Land Use Element Policy C.5 - requires that commercial developments provide a variety of courtyards and pedestrian ways, bicycle trails, landscaped parking lots, and the use of harmonious architecture in the construction of buildings. Air Quality Mitigation Measure #ll - requires the control of nuisance factors in non-residential developments such as noise, smoke, dust, odor and glare. Air Quality Mitigation Measure #25 - encourages pedestrian circulation in commercial areas through the provision of convenient parking facilities, increased sidewalk width, pedestrian-oriented building designs, landscaping, street lighting and street furniture. 4. That the Planning Director has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15061 (b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines and will not have any adverse significant impact on the environment. Conditions: 1. Approval and implementation of ZCA 97-03 is based on the approval of ZCA 97-02, LCPA 97-01 and LCPA 97-07 including final Coastal Commission approvals. . . . . . . . . . . . . DRE.I RESO NO. 258 -2- 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 Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 17th day of September 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: None NOES: Chairperson Welshons, Board Members Marquez and Savary ABSENT: Board Members Compas and Scheer ABSTAIN: None KIM WELSHONS, Chairperson DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ATTEST: DEBBIE FOUNTAIN Acting Housing and Redevelopment Director DRB RESO NO. 258 -3- - EXHBlT2 1 I 1 II PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4163 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH A CITYWIDE PROHIBITION ON DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANTS. CASE NAME: DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT PROHIBITION CASE NO: ZCA 97-02 WHEREAS, the Planning Director has determined that a Zone Code Amendment Prohibit Drive-tbru Restaurants as an allowed land use from all zoning districts in the City including all coastal zone properties 11 II be prepared; and 12 13 14 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of September 1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 15 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 16 and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors 17 relating to the Zone Code Amendment; and 18 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning 19 Commission as follows: 20 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 21 W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission 22 RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Zone Code Amendment ZCA 97-02, according to Exhibit “X”, dated September 17, 1997, attached and made a part 23 hereof, based on the following findings, and subject to the following conditions: 24 . . . 25 . . . 26 . . . 27 28 “’ /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 FindinPs: 1. That the proposed Zone Code Amendment implements City Council Resolution No. 97-474 as approved on June 3,1997. 2. That the proposed Zone Code Amendment will effectively establish a Citywide prohibition on Drive-tbru Restaurants in all zoning districts including the City’s coastal zone area. Such uses can have an adverse impact on public health, safety and welfare through potential cumulative traffic, noise, litter, aesthetic and air quality impacts. 3. That the proposed Zone Code Amendment is consistent with the following implementing policies of the General Plan and Mitigation Measures of the Master EIR conducted for the General Plan Update of 1984 which are designed to de- empbasize motor vehicle use and other nuisance factors while empbasizing pedestrian circulation: Land Use Element Policy C.5 - requires that commercial developments provide a variety of courtyards and pedestrian ways, bicycle trails, landscaped parking lots, and the use of harmonious architecture in the construction of buildings. Air Quality Mitigation Measure #ll - requires the control of nuisance factors in non-residential developments such as noise, smoke, dust, odor and glare. Air Quality Mitigation Measure #25 - encourages pedestrian circulation in commercial areas through the provision of convenient parking facilities, increased sidewalk width, pedestrian-oriented building designs, landscaping, street lighting and street furniture. 4. That the Planning Director has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15061 (b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines and will not have any adverse significant impact on the environment. Conditions: 1. Approval and implementation of ZCA 97-02 is based on the approval of ZCA 97-03, LCPA 97-01 and LCPA 97-07 including final Coastal Commission approvals. PC RESO NO. 4163 -2- - PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 17th day of September 1997, by,the following vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Heineman and Monroy NOES: Chairperson Nielsen, Commissioners .Noble, Savary and Welshons ABSENT: Commissioner Compas ABSTAIN: None .~d----“ll-~~ ,) . ..^-_. H&c- -Y+i;= ROBERT NIELSEN, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: - MICHAEL J. HOLZMtiLER Planning Director PC RESO NO. 4163 -3- /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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4164 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM TO ESTABLISH A PROHIBITION ON DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANTS IN THE CITY’S COASTAL ZONE OUTSIDE THE VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND LCP SEGMENT CASE NAME: DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT PROHIBITON CASE NO: LCPA 97-01 WHEREAS, California State law requires that the Local Coastal Program, General Program, and Zoning designations for properties in the Coastal Zone be in conformance; and WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has filed a verified application for an amendment to the Local Coastal Program for all properties located within the City’s coastal zone but outside of the Village Redevelopment area and LCP segment; and WHEREAS, said verified application, proposes a zone code amendment to establish a Citywide prohibition on Drive-thru Restaurants, constitutes a request for a Local Coastal Program Amendment as shown on Exhibit “Y” dated September 17, 1997, attached hereto and Exhibit “X” as attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 4163, hereby incorporated by reference, and Exhibit “Z” as attached to Design Review Board Resolution No. 257, hereby incorporated by reference (LCPA 97-Ol), as provided in Public Resources Code Section 30574 and Article 15 of Subchapter 8, Chapter 2, Division 5.5 of Title 14 (the California Code of Regulations of the California Coastal Act Administrative Regulations); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of September 1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and . . . . . . )q 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 h 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 Local Coastal Program Amendment. WHEREAS, State Coastal Guidelines requires a six week public review period for any amendment to the Local Coastal Program. , 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) At the end of the State mandated six week review period, starting on July 24, 1997, and ending on September 4,1997. No comments were received. C) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of LCPA 97-01 based on the following findings, and subject to the following conditions: Findinps: 1. That the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment is consistent with all applicable policies of all segments of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, in that the prohibition on Drive-tbru Restaurants will not impact coastal resources or affect public access provisions to beach or shoreline areas. The Village Redevelopment segment of the City’s Local Coastal Program and the Village Master Plan and Design Manual are being amended by LCPA 97-07, in order to implement the Citywide, prohibition in the Village area. 2. That the proposed amendment to the Mello I, Mello II, East Batiquitos, West Batiquitos and Agua Hedionda Lagoon segments of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program is required to implement the Citywide prohibition on Drive-tbru Restaurants in the coastal zone outside the Village Redevelopment segment. 3. That the proposed LCP amendment effectively implements the Citywide prohibition on Drive-tbru Restaurants in the coastal zone by: (1) amending Title 21, the City’s zoning ordinance which regulated coastal zone properties (Exhibit “X”); and (2) adding Drive-tbru Restaurant prohibition text to the policy sections of the Mello I, Mello II, Agua Hedionda, East and West Batiquitos LCP segments (Exhibit “Y”). 4. That the Planning Director has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15061 PC RESO NO. 4164 -2- /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 (b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines and will not have any adverse significant impact on the environment. Conditions: 1. Approval and implementation of LCPA 97-01 is based on the approval of ZCA 97- 02, ZCA 97-03 and LCPA 97-07 including final Coastal Commission approvals. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting to the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 17th day of September 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Heineman and Monroy NOES: Chairperson Nielsen, Commissioners Noble, Savary and Welshons ABSENT: Commissioner Compas ABSTAIN: None A---k “H”- ,..’ ..-‘. : ./L d _. .- .: ‘. CL... ,, ’ ’ ., . ‘b..-m . / ROBERT NIELSEN, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: - MICHAEL J. HOLZMIEER Planning Director PC RESO NO. 4164 -3- EXHIBIT “Y” September 17,1997 TEXT CHANGES TO THE VARIOUS L-CP SEGMENTS REGARDING DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANTS Mello I The Mello I Land Use Plan is amended by the addition of the following policy language to Sections 1, 2 and 3, to read as follows: Section 1 (Standard Pacific), add a new policy: “Policy 6 - Drive-thru Restaurant Prohibition Drive-thru Restaurants are prohibited as an allowed land use. ” Section 2 (Occidental Land Inc.) Policy No. 1, Subsection 2 (b) is amended to read: “Commercial uses may be allowed on the two parcels south of Poinsettia Lane and adjacent to I- 5 on both sides of the freeway provided that 35% of the land areas devoted exclusively to tourist commercial uses. Drive-thru restaurants are prohibited as an allowed land use. ” Section 3 (Ranch0 La Costa) Policy No. 1, Subsection No. 2 is amended to read: “ The land uses allowed by the Master Plan shall be compatible with the City of Carlsbad General Plan as amended and as adopted as of March 1,1988, to provide a combination of residential, commercial (including visitor serving) and open space uses. Drive-thru Restaurants are prohibited as an allowed land use. ” Mello II The Mello II Land Use Plan is amended by the addition of new policy language to Section No. 1 (Allowable Land Uses) to read as follows: ‘Policy 1-3 Drive-thru Restaurant Prohibition Drive-thru Restaurants are prohibited as an allowable land use. ” Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan The Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan is amended by the addition of new policy language to Section No. 3(Land Use Plan) to read as follows: “Policy I. 1 I Drive-thru Restaurants are prohibited as an allowable land use. ” East Batiauitos Lagoon The East Batiquitos Lagoon Land Use Plan is amended by the addition of new policy language to Section B. 1 (Land Use Categories), subsection (l)(a)2) to read as follows: “Commercial portions of Planning Areas 10 and 11 that are subject to this plan are designated Recreation Commercial (RC). In addition to the uses permitted under this designation, other uses may include restaurants. Drive-thru Restaurants are prohibited as an allowable land use. ” $7 h The East Batiquitos Lagoon Land Use Plan is amended by the addition of new policy language to Section B. 1 (Land Use Categories), subsection (3)(c) to read as follows: “(c) Drive-thru Restaurants are prohibited as an allowable land use. ” West Batiauitos Lagoon The West Batiquitos Lagoon Land Use Plan is amended by the addition of policy language to Section “A” (Land use Categories) to read as follows: “The following are the proposed land use “Planning Areas”, each providing a brief description. The “Planning Areas” correspond directly with the planning areas approved with the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. All development in these planning areas are subject to the provisions of the Poinsettia Shores master Plan as adopted by the City of Carlsbad and certified by the California Coastal Commission. No development inconsistent with the Master Plan shall be permitted. The planning areas identified below will replace the former planning areas established by the BLEP Master Plan. See the attached map for the location of the Planning Areas described below. Drive-thru Restaurants are prohibited as an allowable land use. ” J8 ExHBlT3 : ‘me CiQ of CARLSBAD Plan&g Department A REPORT TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. 1 0 PC/DRB AGENDA OF: September 17, 1997 Application complete date: February 24, 1997 Project Planner: Eric Munoz Project Engineer: N,/1: ’ SUBJECT: ZCA 97-02/LCPA 97-Ol/ZC# 97-03/LCPA 97-07 - DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT PROHIBITION - Request to amend the City’s Zoning Ordinance and all segments of the City’s Local Coastal Programs to establish a Citywide prohibition on Drive&u Restaurants. I. RECOMMENDATION DesiPn Review Board: That the Design Review Board ADOPT Design Review Board Resolutions No. 257 and 258 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of LCPA 97-07 and ZCA 97-03 based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. Planninp Commission: That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4163 and 4164 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of ZCA 97-02 and LCPA 97-01 based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. INTRODUCTION This application proposes to establish and implement a Citywide prohibition on Drive&u Restaurants in response to City Council direction and action with regards to this land use. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND On June 3, 1997, the Carlsbad City Council adopted Resolution No. 97-474 directing the Planning Director to prepare a potential prohibition of Drive&u Restaurants throughout the City. To implement this Citywide prohibition, a zone code amendment is proposed (ZCA 97-02) which will define and prohibit Drive-thru Restaurants from all zones in the City; and the proposed ZCA 97-03 applies in the Redevelopment Area. The City’s Coastal Zone will be addressed in two separate local coastal program amendments, LCPA 97-07 amends the Village Design Manual to prohibit Drive-thru Restaurants from the Village LCP segment. The balance of the City’s Coastal Zone and LCP segments are addressed by LCPA 97-01 which amends and/or inserts LCP policy text to further implement the Citywide prohibition. ZCA 97-02/LCPA 97-c, 1/ZCA 97-03/LCPA 97-07 - DRIVE-ThKU RESTAURANT PROHIBITION SEPTEMBER 17,1997 IV. ANALYSIS Drive-thru Restaurants have been determined by the City Council to be potentially disruptive to traffic circulation, aesthetic quality and land use compatibility and the Council directed staff to prepare a prohibition of this land use. With the approval of City Council Resolution No. 97-474 on June 3, 1997 (attached), the process of preparing a Citywide prohibition was initiated. This application, therefore, implements Council action by proposing zoning ordinance and LCP text modifications to establish a Drive-thru Restaurant prohibition on a Citywide basis including the City’s coastal zone properties and Village Redevelopment Area. The primary regulations prohibiting Drive-thru Restaurants for all areas of the City except for the Village Redevelopment Area are contained in the City’s zoning ordinance. Currently, Section 21.42.010(5)(N) allows drive&u businesses in any zone except residential through the processing and approval of a conditional use permit. ZCA 97-02 proposes to define Drive-thru Restaurants (based on the presence of a drive-thru lane to service customers), and then to specifically prohibit them from Section 21.42.010(5)(N). This will result in Drive-thru Restaurants being prohibited from &l zones except Village Redevelopment Area in the City by right and via the conditional use permit process. Other sections of the zoning ordinance will be modified as needed to reinforce the Citywide prohibition on Drive&u Restaurants. The proposed zone code changes described above are attached as Exhibit “X” to Planning Commission Resolution No. 4163 for ZCA 97-02. The Village Master Plan and Design Manual implements the Redevelopment Plan and regulates land use in the Village Redevelopment Area. This document currently limits drive-thru facilities for fast food restaurants to three (of the nine) land use districts within the Village Redevelopment Area. The proposed revision to the Village Master Plan and Design Manual is also covered by technical amendment to 21.35.020 (ZCA 97-03) and will prohibit drive-thrus for fast food restaurants in all areas of the Village. The City’s LCP for the Village Redevelopment Area portion of the coastal zone is also implemented by the Village Master Plan and Design Manual. LCPA 97-07 modifies a land use table within the Manual (shown as Exhibit “Z” in Design Review Board Resolution No. 257) to clearly prohibit Drive-thru Restaurants from any location in the Village area and LCP segment. The balance of the City’s Coastal Zone is addressed by LCPA 97-01 which modifies or inserts policy text into the Mello I, Mello II, Agua Hedionda, East Batiquitos and West Batiquitos Local Coastal Program segments. The new/revised policy text clearly prohibits Drive-thru Restaurants from each of these LCP segments and is attached as Exhibit “Y” to Planning Commission Resolution No. 4164. ZCA 97-02/LCPA 97-O I/ZLA 97-03/LCPA 97-07 - DRIVE-THkU RESTAURANT PROHIBITION SEPTEMBER 17,1997 V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Planning Director has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines and will not have any adverse significant impact on the environment. Section 15061 (b)(3) exempts projects which can be seen with certainty, will have no possibility of having a significant effect on the environment. Regulations which prohibit Drive&u Restaurants qualify for this exemption, because they prohibit a land use that has the potential to have adverse impacts on traffic circulation, aesthetic quality, land use compatibility, etc. A Notice of Exemption will be issued by the Planning Director after project approval. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Design Review Board Resolution No. 257 2. Design Review Board Resolution No. 258 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4 163 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4 164 5. City Council Resolution No. 97-474. 6. Exhibit “A,” bold/strikeout of ordinance, copy dated September 17, 1997 ; : L c . E 7 8 9 10 11 12 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I ! 3 I i i r 0 I tt I I al dl cl 01 -c ---( _ RESOLUTION NO. 97-474 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO CONSIDER A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT PROHIBITING DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANTS IN CERTAIN LOCATIONS OR THROUGHOUT THE CITY BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California that: Pursuant to section 2152.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the City Counci f the City of Carlsbad hereby declares its intention to consider an amendment of Title 21 of re Carlsbad Municipal to: Amend section 21.42.010(5)(N) to prohibit drive-thru restaurants in all non-residential zones in the City or portions thereof. The Planning Director is further directed that until these studies are completed nd recommendations are received from him and the Planning Commission, all applicants fo rive-thru restaurants shall be required to sign an acknowledgment of pending and proposed ranges for drive-thru restaurants (attached hereto as Exhibit “A”). PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Count 1 the City of Carlsbad held on,the 3rd day of June , 1997 by the following )te, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Nygaard and Kulchin *-j .- NOES: Council Members Finnila and Hall ABSENT: None EAL) NOTICE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PENDING AND PROPOSED CHANGES FOR DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANTS The City Council of the City of Carlsbad adopted Resolution No. at its meeting of directing the Planning Director to study the issue and make recommendations on the prohibition of drive-thru restaurants in certain locations or throughout the City and to bring those studies and recommendations forward and to hold the necessary public hearings before the Planning Commission which will consider these studies and recommendations. The City Council will then act on these matters and decide whether or not such changes are necessary and appropriate in accordance with the best interests of the citizens of Carlsbad. This process is expected to be completed within the next 12 months. If you have any questions, please contact the Planning Director at 438-l 161. I have read and acknowledge this notice and as the applicant ‘or applicant’s representatives for a drive-thru restaurant. DATED: Signature Print Name EXHIBIT “A A EXHIBIT “A” SEPTEMBER 17,1997 SECTION I: That Title 21, Chapter 2 1.04, Section 21.04.109 is added to the Carlsbad Municipal Code to read as follows: “21.04.109. Drive&u Restaurant. “Drive-thru Restaurant” means a restaurant that has a drive-thru lane to serve customers in motor vehicles.” SECTION II: That Title 2 1, Chapter 2 1.26, Section 2 1.26.0 10(22) is amended to read as follows: “21.26.010(221 (22) Restaurants (excluding Drive-thru Restaurants), tea rooms or cafes (excluding dancing or entertainment and on-sale liquor);” SECTION III: That Title 21, Chapter 21.26, Section 21.26.020( 1) is amended to read as follows: “21.26.020(l). (1) All uses shall be conducted wholly within a building except such uses as . . m gasoline stations, electrical transformer substations and nurseries for sale of plants and flowers and similar enterprises customarily conducted in the open;” SECTION IV: That Title 21, Chapter 21.27, Section 21.27.030(4) is amended to read as follows: “2 1.27.030(4). (4) Restaurants (except Drive-thru Restaurants);” SECTION V: That Title 21, Chapter 21.27, Section 21.27.030(6) is amended to read as follows: “21.27.030(6). (6) Drive-thru facilities (except Drive-thru Restaurant@;” SECTION VI: That Title 21, Chapter 21.28, Section 21.28.020(l) is amended to read as follows: -l- “21.28.020(11 (1) All uses shall be conducted wholly within a building except such uses as . . m gasoline stations, electrical transformer substations and horticultural , nurseries, and similar enterprises customarily conducted in the open.” SECTION VII: That Title 21, Chapter 21.29, Section 21.29.030(3) is amended to read as follows: “2 1.29.030(3). (3) Restaurants (with the exception of Drive-thru Restaurants);” SECTION VIII: That Title 2 1, Chapter 21.29, of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the deletion of subdivision (5) and renumbering of subdivision (6) to subdivision (5) of Section 21.29.050, to read as follows: “21.29.050(5). (5) . . e Bed > , and breakfast uses.” SECTION IX: That Title 21, Chapter 21.30, Section 21.30.020(2) is amended to read as follows: “21.30.020(2). (2) All uses shall be conducted wholly within a completely enclosed building, or within an area enclosed on all sides with a solid wall or uniformly painted fence not less than five feet in height, except such uses as m gasoline stations, electrical transformer substations and horticultural nurseries, and similar en&prises customarily conducted in the open, provided such exclusion shall not include storage yards, contractor’s yards and like uses;” SECTION X: That Title 21, Chapter 21.34, Section 21.34.030(l) is amended to read as follows: “21.34.030(l). (1) Eating and drinking establishments (with the exception of Drive-thru Restaurants);” SECTION XI: That Title 21, Chapter 21.35, Section 21.35.020 is amended to read as follows: -2- “21.35.020. Incornoration of redevelopment plan and village master plan and design manual by reference. The Carlsbad Village Area Redevelopment Plan as adopted by Carlsbad City Council Ordinance No. 9591 and the Village Master Plan and Design Manual as adopted by Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 271, and modified by Carlsbad Housing and Redevelopment Commission Resolutions No. 280 and 9 are hereby adopted by reference and incorporated into this chapter. SECTION XII: That Title 21, Chapter 21.42, Section 21.42.010(5)(N) is amended to read as follows: “2 1.42.01 O.(5)(N). (N) Drive&r-u business or drive&u facilities to existing businesses except Drive-thru Restaurants which are prohibited from all zones in the City including coastal zone properties. The Drive-thru Restaurant prohibition applies Citywide to ail existing and proposed specific plans, master plans, and related amendments. Drive-thru Restaurants that are either existing or have received final approvals by the effective date of this ordinance are allowed to exist and may apply for CUP extensions to allow for continued operations.” -3- PLANNING COMMISSIOI~ September 17, 1997 JOINT PUBLIC HEARING: 1. ZCA 97-OULCPA 97-011ZCA 97-031LCPA 97-07 DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT PROHIBITION, A request to amend the City’s Zoning Ordinance and all segments of the City’s Local Coastal Programs to establish a Citywide prohibition on Drive-thru Restaurants. Planning Commission Chairperson Nielsen announced that if the Planning Commission recommends approval of this item, it will be forwarded to the City Council for it’s consideration. Design Review Board Chairperson Welshons announced that if the Design Review Board recommends approval of this item, it’s recommendation will be forwarded to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission for it’s consideration. Project Planner, Eric Muiioz, presented the staff report and described the project as follows: One of the ways the City’s Zoning Ordinance can be amended is by a Resolution of Intention passed by the City Council. This item is one such project. On June 3, 1997, the City Council passed a Resolution of Intention, directing staff to bring back a prohibition ordinance on drive-thru restaurants, citywide. There are two (2) ZCA’s and two (2) LCPA’s that, collectively, will implement a citywide prohibition. There are two (2) sets of amendments because of the city’s Redevelopment Area needs a ZCA and LCPA of it’s own to get the drive-thru prohibition implemented in the downtown area. With regard to the June 3, 1997 action by the City Council, one item in the Resolution of Intention was clarified, in that the word “study” is in error. Staff was directed to return to Council with a Zone Code Amendment that would implement a citywide prohibition on drive-thru restaurants and not a “study” as indicated in the Resolution of Intention. Mr. Muiioz pointed out that staff can not return to Council with the requested ZCA’s without action by both the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board. Design Review Board Member, Marquez, questioned why the Design Review Board had not been made privy to the study regarding this matter, in the same manner that the study was presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Munoz responded by stating that it was an oversight possibly caused by the fact that staff did not realize that, technically, in order to implement a citywide prohibition, they would have to go into the Village Manual and therefore require Design Review Board action. That particular process had not been developed to that level of detail when the first study went forward. Staff did not envision getting into the Redevelopment Regulations. Member Marquez asked what the exact scope of the study was. Mr. Muiloz replied that the study looked at the locations of drive-thru restaurants in the City and different approaches that other cities take regarding the regulation of drive-thrus. Design Review Board Chairperson Welshons, pointed out that Mayor Lewis signed the Resolution of Intention which reads, in part, ’ . . an intention to consider an amendment and sending out the Planning Director to do studies and recommendations and bring them before the Planning Commission.” She went on to ask if something has happened between June 3, 1997 and this meeting, causing the Council to change the wording of the Resolution of Intention. 47 - - PLANNING COMMISSL.4 September 17,1997 Page 3 Mr. Mulioz replied that the wording has not been changed, that it is a simple error in the use of the word “study(ies)“. Technically, the wording does not reflect the direction of the Council on June 3, 1997. The Council directed that an ordinance prohibiting drive-thru restaurants be brought back by staff and stopped short of directing further studies on the matter. Mr. Muiioz deferred any further questions, regarding the document that the Mayor signed, to the Assistant Planning Director or the Assistant City Attorney. Chairperson Welshons asked why the arguments against future drive-thrus are not applicable to the currently existing ones. Mr. Muiioz replied that the prohibition would not affect existing drive-thru restaurants nor the two (2) sites already approved for drive-thru restaurants. Chairperson Welshons pointed out that if the argument that such restaurants cause increased traffic, air quality impacts, litter, and noise are true, then why not “out and out” prohibit them all, including the currently existing ones. Mr. MuiToz did not answer why the existing drive-thru restaurants would not be prohibited, but stated that if the arguments pointed out are, in fact true, perhaps the City feels it has absorbed as much as it wants to and is therefore unwilling to add more of the same to make matters even worse. Chairperson Welshons, directing her question to Acting Housing and Redevelopment Director, Debbie Fountain, referred to Exhibit “Z” and asked exactly what has changed, and where, that prohibits these drive-thru restaurants in all nine (9) zones in the Village Redevelopment Area. Ms. Fountain explained the exhibit (chart) and indicated where this type of restaurant has or has not been allowed, in the past, and pointed out that with the proposed prohibition, drive-thrus would not be allowed in any of the “food service” categories and would include all restaurants, not just fast food restaurants. Chairperson Welshons also pointed out it appears that the “grandfathering in” of existing drive-thru restaurants, within the Redevelopment Area, are referenced to the Planning Commission resolutions but that there are no Design Review Board resolutions that state that existing drive-thrus will stay. She then questioned Exhibit “Y,, and asked for some clarification. Ms. Fountain stated that, in effect, when the CUP’s for the existing drive-thrus are due for renewal, they will fall under the heading of “Non-conforming Uses”. She described “non-conforming use” by stating that if the existing use has’been redesignated as “non-conforming”, that entity will be entitled to remain as long as there is no subsequent expansion or use change on an existing site. They would also have to abate the non-conforming use, at that point. Ms. Welshons then inquired as to how many drive-thrus are currently in existence in the Village. Ms. Fountain replied that five (5) out of a total of twelve (12) (throughout the city), drive-thrus are currently in the Redevelopment Area. Ms. Welshons then inquired as to how many more could potentially have been built. Ms. Fountain replied that that figure would depend on how many would choose to go to operating “fast- food” restaurants. Currently, there are no applications on file requesting a drive-thru. Ms. Fountain further pointed out that a change to the Village Master Plan requires final Coastal Commission approval. Commissioner Heineman asked Assistant City Attorney, Rich Rudolf, if he is correct in his belief that it is illegal to ban something that has already received approval. - - PLANNING COMMIS!X.* September 17,1997 Page 4 Mr. Rudolf replied that Commissioner Heineman is incorrect. He went on to clarify this issue by stating that when you change the zoning, what was legally authorized and operating in that area, becomes a lawful non-conforming use. On the other hand, if the operation was not authorized and therefore illegal, it would be considered to be an unlawful non-conforming use and the city would be in a position to abate it, immediately. If the lawful non-conforming use is not changed, increased, or expanded, it continues until it economically expires or the owner decides to do something different. Commissioner Heineman went on to ask Mr. Rudolf if he is saying that there are currently unlawful non- conforming uses in the Village? Mr. Rudolf replied that there may be some, someplace, that the city is not aware of. Mr. Rudolf went on to point out that when a zoning authority is changed, whatever is legally existing at the time of the change, remains in place and is allowed to continue as a lawful non-conforming use. Commissioner Heineman, for clarification, asked what would happen to the existing drive-thru restaurants in the event that the proposed prohibition becomes law. Mr. Rudolf replied that absolutely nothing would happen. However, it would put the existing facilities in a position where they cannot expand. Commissioner Heineman then asked what happens when these existing businesses have to renew their CUP’S. Mr. Rudolf replied that that is a question that staff has not addressed, as yet, and that he is not certain that he knows the answer and, consequently, can not answer it at this time. Commissioner Noble, asked if he is correct in his assumption that this prohibition stand began when the Planning Commission approved the Carl’s Jr./Green Surrito application, in an effort to protect promises made to LEGO. Mr. MuAoz agreed that it is possible that the approval of the Carl’s Jr./Green Burrito project was the catalyst that started the movement for the drive-thru prohibition. Commissioner Noble then asked if any consideration has been given as to how this particular prohibition will impact the handicapped. Mr. Mufioz replied that he is not aware that any segment of the population were truly considered, one way or the other, when the Council directed this ROI to be approved and the ordinance to be brought back to them. He further stated that it is possible that Council feels that the general population, including the handicapped, is already adequately served with the existing stock of drive-thru restaurants. Commissioner Noble then asked if there have been any studies conducted, or calculations made, regarding the financial impact or financial advances in connection with drive-thru lanes. Mr. Muf’roz replied that the Finance Department tried to review some records, as far as McDonald’s increase after they opened their drive-thru, but were unable to distinguish between drive-thru sales and regular sales. He further stated that others in the drive-thru restaurant business have told him that a drive- thru lane can represent up to a 50% increase in business but that he has not seen any studies to back up those claims. Commissioner Noble asked if a restaurant with a drive-thru requires less than the normal amount of parking and cited McDonald’s as an example. Mr. MuAoz replied that parking is figured on the square footage of the building. Further, McDonald’s needed to be able to eliminate some of their parking to make room for their drive-thru lane. Accordingly, they reduced their building size by approximately 25%, thereby reducing their parking requirement and 2 7 giving them the room required for the drive-thru lane. - PLANNING COMMISSL.. September 17, 1997 Page 5 Chairperson Welshons, referring to Finding #2 in Resolution No. 258 of the Design Review Board, pointed out that this finding states that these uses have an adverse impact on public health, safety, and welfare, through the potential cumulative traffic noise, litter, aesthetic, and air quality impacts. She went on to ask that when these findings were made, was there any consideration given to the reverse impacts such as the need for additional parking and will the Village Redevelopment Area have sufficient parking area available to support new restaurants without a drive-thru lane? With regard to air quality, Ms. Welshons asked if there was consideration given for more vehicles “cold starting” their engines versus vehicles going straight through the drive-thru and exiting the area altogether. Also, Ms. Welshons asked if “drive- thru” food is taxed and if there is a plus or minus side to the tax revenue to the City. Ms. Fountain, in response to Ms. Welshons questions, stated that as the rest of the city, parking in the Redevelopment Area is figured on the gross floor space of the building. Regardless of whether or not a restaurant has a drive-thru, the parking requirement is going to be based on the total size of their building. In terms of air quality, Ms. Fountain, stated that idling produces emissions as well as “cold starts” but stated that she doesn’t know which one creates more than the other. Further, she stated that the city has always encouraged foot traffic in the village as opposed to vehicular traffic, and have tried to discourage drive-thrus whenever possible, particularly in the downtown area. On the other hand, they have allowed drive-thrus in the freeway serving commercial areas and outlying areas. Regarding the sales tax question, Ms. Fountain stated that taxes are charged or not charged in a variety of ways. It is not just a simple question of if a person eats the food on the property or takes it away from the property. She further stated that there have not been any studies done in that area. Chairperson Nielsen opened Public Testimony and offered the invitation to speak. Bill Hofman, Hofman Planning Associates, 2386 Faraday Avenue, Suite 120, Carlsbad, stated that he represents the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce as its President, as well as representing himself as a business owner in the City. Mr. Hofman stated his opposition to the proposed prohibition of all drive-thru restaurants in the city and requested that these Design Review Board and Planning Commission Resolutions not be recommended for approval. He stated that his reasons for opposing these recommendations are several and went on to list them as follows: The primary reason for this prohibition is to address the traffic congestion in some of the city’s busier commercial areas. Response: This is a real concern and should be addressed, citywide, and on a case by case basis. However, this ordinance goes much too far in trying to address this issue. He pointed out that many drive-thru restaurants work very well in this community and in fact have the positive effect of reducing parking demand in a commercial center. And, although it is true that parking is measured by the square footage of a building which is a parking requirement, this issue is about parking demand and that demand will diminish with a drive-thru facility. 2) Drive-thru restaurants offer a convenience to the citizens of Carlsbad, especially those families with young children whose schedules are varied and hectic. In many cases, drive-thrus are truly a lifesaver when a quick breakfast, lunch, or dinner, is required. 3) Also, drive-thrus are also a “blessing” when serving the handicapped. Many handicapped are not easily able to get out of their vehicles to purchase their meals and find a drive-thru much easier and certainly more convenient. Mr. Hofman also pointed out that the subject of convenience to the handicapped has not been discussed, at all, with regard to this prohibition. 4) Wrthout a drive-thru facility, people often leave their kids and/or pets in their vehicles while they run in to buy their food, which is not a very safe thing to do, especially on a hot day. Mr. Hofman concluded by stating that based on those four reasons, drive-thru restaurants do provide a convenient service to the many residents of Carlsbad and requested that the Commission and Design Review Board take these things into consideration when deliberating on this issue. 30 rc4 PLANNING COMMISSIC,. - September 17,1997 Page 6 Mr. Hofman then addressed this proposed ordinance from a planning perspective, stating that any kind of ban or moratorium takes planning out of the hands of staff and the Commission and he does not feel that that would be a good thing. In his opinion, Mr. Hofman stated that he believes that drive-thru restaurants, like any other type of use, should be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Hofman stated that during a recent City Council meeting, he had seen an overhead projection that showed the study area that required that all discretionary applications, within a specific planning area in and around the Carlsbad Ranch, be reviewed and approved by the City Council. He went on to say that perhaps drive-thru restaurants could be treated the same way. Instead of an outright ban, he suggested that a mandatory review by the City Council would be a better approach. He pointed out that the City always has the ability to deny a Conditional Use Permit if there is a problem. Mr. Hofman further suggested that each application could be looked at, based on it’s own merits and in light of surrounding land use issues and stated that this would be a more positive approach than an outright ban. From a business perspective, Mr. Hofman pointed out that any moratorium or ban of a legitimate type of business, sends out a very negative signal to other businesses that are looking to come to Carlsbad. He posed the question, “If the City bans drive-thrus today, what might be banned tomorrow?” Mr. Hofman indicated that such action would place a needless cloud over the City and many desirable businesses will ultimately relocate to other areas. Mr. Hofman summariied by stating that drive-thru restaurants are not so bad, as they do provide conveniences to a very large number of citizens. He concluded his testimony by stating that a total ban on drive-thru restaurants is not good planning nor is it good for the local business economy and urged the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board, to deny a recommendation of approval for a citywide ban of drive-thru restaurants. Richard T. Donahue, 4964 David Way, San Bernardino, CA., owner of six (6) lots in La Costa Downs, stated that in his opinion it is time to ban drive-thru restaurants, not only because of the air pollution that idling cars create, but because they do not enhance or enrich the quality of life. Jan Sobel, representing the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce, 2620 Paseo del Norte, Carlsbad, stated that the Chamber has discussed this issue, at length, and has determined that to ban drive-thru restaurants (a part of the “American Way”) would be detrimental to an “open market economy”. She pointed out that drive-thrus were included in the Growth Management Plan and by banning drive-thru restaurants, the City is drastically departing from clear growth management standards. Rather than a blanket ban, Ms. Sobel stated that the Chamber urges the City to develop guidelines and criteria for the drive-thru Conditional Use Permits that would address the City’s concerns by prohibiting their development in undesired areas. Ms. Sobel reminded the Commissioners and Board Members that seven (7) out of eleven (11) drive-thrus are in the western portion of the city and only four (4) throughout the rest of the city. Further, there should be some consideration given to the other parts of the city, that are yet undeveloped, that will also be home to young families, the elderly, the handicapped, etc., who will welcome the conveniences that drive-thrus provide. Ms. Sobel concluded her testimony by urging the Commission and the Board to reject the proposed ban of drive-thru restaurants. Regarding his earlier questions to Mr. Rudolf, Commissioner Heineman stated that the answer to both of his questions are in the proposed ordinance which reads, “Drive-thru restaurants that are either existing or have received final approvals by the effective dates, are allowed to exist and may apply for CUP extensions to allow for continued operations.” Mr. Wayne interjected that there will be an addition to that provision that will also allow the granting of the CUP extensions. Mr. Rudolf suggested that the wording of the above provision should read, ” . . . and may apply for and be granted, CUP extensions, etc. . .” Seeing no one else wishing to testify, Chairperson Nielsen closed the Public Testimony. 3/ - PLANNING COMMISSIC.. September 17. 1997 Page 7 Commissioner Welshons asked Mr. Rudolf if this provision would apply to the Village Redevelopment Area. Mr. Rudolf replied by stating that he does not feel it applies to the Village Redevelopment Area but that the change to page 2-27 of the Village Master Plan and Design Manual would initiate the use of the section regarding non-conforming uses. He went on to say that it would not be difficult to interpret that language, with regard tonon-conforming uses in the Redevelopment Area, to be less prohibitive than the zone code language, and those uses would continue until the owner would (economically) stop that business and change to a conforming use. Board Member Marquez, asked Ms. Fountain what Staffs opinion is regarding fast food and do they want to see more of the same, downtown? Ms. Fountain replied by stating that they really do not want to see more fast food restaurants, but that there may be places where it may be appropriate. This is the reason why provision have been provided for them in the Village Master Plan. Generally, the new Master Plan was written to be much more pedestrian oriented. Ms. Fountain pointed out that not all “fast food” restaurants are drive-thrus and that “fast food” restaurants may be perfectly fine. The problem is when a fast food use is connected to a drive- thru. That application brings a completely different atmosphere with it, that does not fit into the Village Master Plan nor is it desired in the Village Area. Board Member Marquez stated that she does not understand why staff has made such a distinction between “fast food” and “drive-thru”, and that in her opinion, fast food and drive-thru are synonymous. She further pointed out that by prohibiting a drive-thru restaurant does not necessarily ensure that an individual wanting a quick meal, is going to take extra time to stroll through the Village instead of going directly to the restaurant to eat and then leave the area. Ms. Fountain, referring to the philosophical basis for some of the Village Master Plan, stated that to allow drive-thrus would be in direct contradiction to what is envisioned for the Village. Board Member Marquez then pointed out that there are several areas, within the Redevelopment Area, which would be zoned to accept a fast food restaurant and where there is currently not a concentration of the same. She went on to question whether or not a fast food business owner would be discouraged from locating in Carlsbad, knowing that a drive-thru lane is prohibited. Ms. Marquez stated that she was referring to the North State Street corridor, in particular, where it is still underdeveloped and there is no pedestrian orientation. Ms. Fountain stated that in District 4, fast food restaurants are not permitted and that this was a decision already made as a part of the Master Plan. However, “fast foods” are allowed in Districts 1, 2, and 3, and “small fast foods” are allowed in District 5. She also pointed out that they are not prohibiting “fast food”, just drive-thrus. Additionally, most of the available sites in the Redevelopment Area are not large enough to accommodate drive-thrus. PLANNING COMMISSION: ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Heineman, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4163 and No. 4164, recommending approval of ZCA 97-02 and LCPA 97-01, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, and to include the addition of the phrase ” . . . and be granted. . .” on Page 3, Section 12 of Exhibit X. . . . . . . . . . 32 - PLANNING COMMISSIC,, September 17, 1997 Page 8 ACTION: Motion by Board Member Savary, and duly seconded, to adopt Design Review Board Resolutions No. 257 and No. 258, recommending approval of LCPA 97-07 and ZCA 97-03, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, and to include the addition of the phrase ” . . . and be granted . . .” on Page 3, Section 12 of Exhibit X. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Commissioner Noble stated that in his opinion, this ordinance does not take into consideration the handicapped laws that are presently in effect. Additionally, he pointed out, every small business needs every break they can get to be successful and survive, and to deprive someone of up to 30% to 40% of their business, is very “business unfriendly”. Commissioner Noble also stated that the Urgency Ordinance passed by the City Council will effectively control the area around LEG0 and should not extend to other parts of the City. He also stated that each “drive-thru” should be considered on a case-by-case basis. In conclusion, Commissioner Noble stated that he cannot, in good conscience, support the motion to approve the proposed ordinance to ban all drive-thru restaurants. Commissioner Heineman stated that he feels strongly that drive-thrus are an abomination, as is most of the food in Carlsbad. He voiced his support for the motion to approve the proposed ordinance, by stating that the fewer fast food restaurants (particularly those with a drive-thru lane), the better. Commissioner Monroy stated that he can support the motion on the basis that there is no way of truly considering the traffic issue, which was effectively demonstrated by the Carl’s Jr. Restaurant. He voiced his concern regarding additional traffic and safety and as an example, suggested that drive-thru restaurants are like gas stations - they do the best when there is one on each comer. Commissioner Savary stated that she would like to see this issue studied a bit more, and ban drive-thrus in certain zones or areas where they would be totally inappropriate. She further stated that she feels that the City should not arbitrarily ban them from the entire city and therefore will not support the motion. Chairperson Nielsen stated that he cannot support the motion for this ordinance, as it is written. However, he stated that he could support it if it could be modified to direct the individual CUP to the level of the City Council for their approval or lack of approval, on a case-by-case basis. He further stated that he feels that an outright ban is insupportable because it is not good for business and is not good for Carlsbad. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DISCUSSION: Board Member Marquez stated that staff has spent months designing the Village Master Plan, addressing a multitude of issues, for the new development in the Village and pointed out that the Village still has areas that are in need of commercial stimulation. In addition, Ms. Marquez voiced her concern regarding the fact that a copy of the initial study was given to the Planning Commission but not to the Design Review Board for review. Member Marquez stated that she believes that there are places in Carlsbad for drive- thru restaurants and she cannot support the motion as presented. Chairperson Welshons stated that after reading all of the material, she had a problem understanding how the leap, by the Council, was made from directing staff to, u study the issue, make recommendations, and bring those studies and recommendations forward and hold the necessary public hearings before the Planning Commission to consider these studies and recommendations . . .‘I, to a straight-out prohibition. She further stated that this leap was made without any steps in between, which might have clarified why this prohibition is needed. Ms. Welshons pointed out that until she has the opportunity to see the original document, signed by the Mayor, she certainly cannot support what clearly appears to be a short-cut to proposed citywide ban on drive-thru restaurants. Additionally, she suggested that the issue may not be with just drive-thrus, but could be with fast food restaurants as a whole. Consequently, if the image of fast food restaurants is not what the City wants, then say that and either disperse them through the city, 3 3 equitably, rather than downtown and then phase out some and don’t automatically grant the CUP’s to - PLANNING COMMISSIL.< September 17, 1997 Page 9 those that will be up for renewal. In other words, deal with drive-thrus as a whole. Ms. Welshons also stated that she does not recall that the Planning Commission ever got a copy of the “study” on drive-thrus. Chairperson Welshons pointed out that, with regard to being business friendly or unfriendly, Carlsbad is being business friendly to some drive-thrus (coffee houses, gas stations, car washes, etc., ) but not business friendly to the fast food restaurants that want to have a drive-thru lane. She went on to agree that certain restrictions could be placed on these uses, on a case-by-case basis. Finally, Chairperson Welshons stated that she cannot support the motion. PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: 2-4 MOTION FAILED Monroy and Heineman Nielsen, Noble, Savary, and Welshons None DESIGN REVIEW BOARD VOTE: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: O-3 MOTION FAILED None Savary, Marquez and Welshons None MINUTE MOTION: ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Heineman, and duly seconded, to require that any applications for Conditional Use Permits for Drive-thru Restaurants, be considered on a case-by-case basis and that all applications approved by the Planning Commission for such restaurants, be forwarded to the City Council for final approval. Commissioner Noble pointed out that this motion is unnecessary as it does not change the procedures as they currently exist, except to send all such item(s) to Council for final approval. The only motion that would change procedure would be the motion for the proposed prohibition ordinance. He further stated that LEG0 should be.protected but he feels it unwise to prohibit drive-thrus, citywide. Motion failed due to lack of a second. In response to an earlier question as to what happens with regard to an appeal, Mr. Rudolf stated, “Under the rules which are applicable to the Planning Commission and, with regard to this item, are also applicable to the Design Review Board because it is sitting as if it were the Planning Commission, a matter with regard to Chapter 21.35, the rule in Section 2152.080 is, your action in denying an application for a Zone Code Amendment shall be final and conclusive unless, within 10 calendar days following the date of decision, an appeal in writing is filed with the City Council by the applicant.” Mr. Rudolf also advised that the appeal, on the Design Review Board side, would be to the Housing and Redevelopment Commission. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ADJOURNMENT: The Design Review Board portion of this meeting was adjourned at 7:17 p.m. RECESS: Chairperson Nielsen declared a recess of the Planning Commission at 7:17 p.m. and reconvened at 7:30 p.m., with six Commissioners present. 3q PROOF OF P”BL?ATION (2010 & 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 171349 (Blade-Citizen) and case number 172171 (The Times-Advocate) for the cities of Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Solana Beach and the North County Judicial District; that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: November 22, 1997 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. !3an Manzos Dated at California, this 24th day of Nov. 1997 NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising s paceior the County Clerk’s Proof of Publication of Notice p of Public Hearing ______-__-------B-v- F iling Stamp NOTICE OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARtNG ZCA 97-021LCPA 97-Ol/ZCA 97-03/LCPA 97-07 DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT PROHIBITAITON NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council and the Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a joint public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m., on Tuesday December 2, 1997, to consider amending the City’s Zoning Ordinance’ the Village Master Plan and Design Manual for the Redevelopmen; Area, and all segments of the City’s Local Coastal Programs to establish a Citywide prohibition on drive-thru restaumnts in the City of Carlsbad. I If you have any questions ggarding thjs matter, ple se contact Eric Munoz, in the Planning Department, at (760) 4381161, extension 4441. If you challenge the Zone Code Amendments, Village Master Plan and Design Manual for the Redevelopment Area Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendments in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues raised by you or someone else at t h e public hearing described in this notice, or,in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad City Clerk’s Office &or,prior to, then public hearing. .., “1 APPLICANT City ,of Carlsbad ,, ’ CITY OF CARL&AD .s ii 1 CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING’& REDEVELOPMENT CCMMISSION _ 4 I ia Legal 51508 November 22,1997 >’ & .- (Form A) TO: CITY CLERK’S OFFICE FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice ZCA 97-02/LCPA 97-Ol/ZCA 97-03fLCPA 97-07 - DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT PROHIBITION for a public hearing before the City Council. Please notice the item for the council meeting of F-T AV Thank you. OCTOBER 30, 1997 Oate NOTICE OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad will hold a JOINT public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 17, 1997, to consider a request to amend the City’s Zoning Ordinance, the Village Master Plan and Design Manual for the Redevelopment Area, and all segments of the City’s Local Coastal Programs to establish a Citywide prohibition on drive-thru restaurants in the City of Carlsbad. NOTE: THIS IS A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after September 11, 1997. If you have any questions, please call Eric Munoz in the Planning Department at (760) 438-l 161, extension 4441. If you challenge the Zone Code Amendments, Village Master Plan and Design Manual for the Redevelopment Area Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendments in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: ZCA 97-02/LCPA 97-Ol/ZCA 97-03/LCPA 97-07 CASE NAME: DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT PROHIBITION PUBLISH: SEPTEMBER 4,1997 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW BOARD . EM:vd 2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 l (619) 438-11610 FAX (619) 438-0894 @ I A * CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DIST ENCINITAS SCHOOL DIST 801 PINE AVE 1 CIVIC CENTER DR 101 SO RANCH0 SANTA FE CARLSBAD CA 92008 SAN MARCOS CA 92069 ENCINITAS CA 92024 SAN DIEGUITO SCHOOL DIST 701 ENCINITAS BLVD ENCINITAS CA 92024 VALLECITOS WATER DIST 788 SAN MARCOS BLVD SAN MARCOS CA 92069 CITY OF SAN MARCOS 1 CIVIC CENTER DR SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME SUITE 50 330 GOLDENSHORE LONG BEACH CA 90802 LAFCO 1600 PACIFIC HWY SAN DIEGO CA 92101 LEUCADIA CNTY WATER DIST 1960 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 SD COUNTY PLANNING SUITE B 5201 RUFFIN RD SAN DIEGO CA 92123 CITY OF OCEANSIDE 300 NOfiTH COAST HWY OGEANSIDE CA 92054 OLIVENHAIN WATER DIST 1966 OLIVENHAIN RD ENCINITAS CA 92024 CITY OF ENCINITAS 505 S VULCAN AVE ENCINITAS CA 92024 CITY OF VISTA PO BOX 1988 VISTA CA 92085 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY SANDAG SUITE B SUITE 800 9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD 400 B STREET SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331 SAN DIEGO CA 92101 AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST 9150 CHESAPEAKE DR SAN DIEGO CA 92123 . INTERESTED PARTIES UPDATED 1 l-96 OLIVENHAIN M.W.D. 1966 OLIVENHAIN ROAD ENCINITAS CA 92024 CRAIG ADAMS SIERRA CLUB SAN DIEGO CHAPTER 3820 RAY SAN DIEGO CA 92101 LESLIE ESPOSITO 1893 AMELFI DRIVE ENCINITAS CA 92024 LANIKAI LANE PARK SHARP; SPACE 3 6550 PONTO DRIVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 h KIM SEIBLY SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC PO BOX 1831 SAN DIEGO CA 92112 PERRY A IAMB 890 MERE POINT ROAD BRUNSWICK MAINE 04011 RICHARD RETECKI COASTAL CONSERVANCY SUITE 1100 1330 BROADWAY OAKLAND CA 94612 DALE/DONNA SCHREIBER 7163 ARGONAURA WAY CARLSBAD CA 92009 ~~~,~~~%X)F?lESTO:..: I’ ;jj /J-J;>$&R&j; ‘.,,i: ‘: ;,, MAIN $j~~Ry.:,:;,,; ‘_,_ ,~~~~C;j$ii&I~~RY (:’ I ,:~WATEf3ID!STR!CT:‘ ‘, ‘__ h CITY OF ENCINITAS COM.DEV. DEPARTMENT 505 S. VULCAN AVE ENCINITAS CA 92024 REGIONAL WATER QUAL. BD EXECUTIVE OFFICER SUITE B 9771 ClAlREMONT MESA BLVD SAN DIEGO CA 92124 GUY MOORE JR 6503 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92009 CYRIL-AND MARY GIBSON 12142 ARGYLE DRIVE LOS AlAMlTOS CA 90702 JOHN LAMB 1446 DEVLIN DRIVE LOS ANGELES CA 90069 MARY GRIGGS STATE LANDS COMMISSSION SUITE 100 SOUTH 100 HOWE AVE SACRAMENTO CA 95825-8202 SAN DIEGO COUNTY PLANNING & LAND USE DEPT JOAN VOKAC - SUITE B-5 5201 RUFFIN ROAD SAN DIEGO CA 92123 ANTHONY BONS 25709 HILLCREST AVE ESCONDIDO CA 92026 MR/MRS MICHAEL CARDOSA 6491 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92008 TABATA FARMS PO BOX 1338 CARLSBAD CA 92018 KENNETH E SULZER SANDAG - EXEC DIRECTOR 1ST INT’L PLAZA, SUITE 800 401 B STREET SAN DIEGO CA 92101 JAN SOBEL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PO BOX 1605 CARLSBAD CA 92008 BILL MCLEAN c/o LAKESHORE GARDENS 7201 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92009 SPIERS ENTERPRISES DWIGHT SPIERS SUITE 139 23 CORPORATE PLAZA NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 SUPERVISOR BILL HORN ATTN: ART DANELL COUNTY OF SD, ROOM 335 1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY SAN DIEGO CA 92101 LEE ANDERSON CRA PRESIDENT 5200 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92008 FLOYD ASHBY 416 LA COSTA AVE ENCINITAS CA 92024 CARLENE TIMM SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC PO BOX 1831 SAN DIEGO CA 92112 A ’ LABELS - 5163 LCPA MAILING LIST (GOVERNMENT AGENCIES) APPENDIX A (PER COASTAL COMMISSION) DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL ROOM 700 110WESTASTREET SANDIEGO CA 92101 PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 350 MCALLISTER STREET SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103 BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION & HSG AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WILLIAM G. BRENNAN ROOM 5504 DEPUTY SECRETARY ‘AND SPECIAL COUNCIL 1120 N STREET SUITE 2450 SACRAMENTO CA 95814 980 NINTH STREET SACRAMENTO CA 958 14 DISTRICT 11 CALTRANS TIM VASQUEZ, ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING 2829 SAN JUAN ST SAN DIEGO CA 92138 SANDAG (SAN DIEGO COUNTY) WELLS FARGO PLAZA SUITE 800 401 B STREET SANDIEGO CA 92101 OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH OFFICE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AFAIRS 1400 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO CA 958 14 DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE STEVE.SHAFFER, AGRICULTURE RESOURCES ROOM 100 1220 N STREET SACRAMENTO CA 95814 RESOURCES AGENCY RM 1311 14 16 NINTH STREET SACRAMENTO CA 95812 e ‘AIR RESOURCES BOARD ANNE GERAGHTY, MANAGER GENERAL PROJECTS SECTION PO BOX 2815 SACRAMENTO CA 95812 ENERGY RESOURCES, CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION CHUCK NAJARIAN 1516 NINTH STREET SACRAMENTO CA 95814 MARINE RESOURCES REGION, DR & G ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES SUPERVISOR 350 GOLDEN SHORE LONG BEACH CA 90802 ;OUTHERN REGION OHN WALSTROM, TECHNICAL SERVICES 1885 RIO SAN DIEGO’DRIVE AND DIEGO CA 92108 TATE LANDS COMMISSION WIGHT SANDERS JITE 1005 ,O HOWE AVE \CRAMENTO CA 95825-8202 - COASTAL CONSERVANCY SUITE 1100 1330 BROADWAY OAKLAND CA 94612 DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME DON LOLLOCK, CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION RM 1206-20 1416 NINTH STREET SACRAMENTO CA 95814 DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY DOUG WICKIZER, ENVIROMENTAL COORD RM 1516-2 1416 NINTH STREET SACRAMENTO CA 95814 SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION BILL TRAVIS 30 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO CA 95814 WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD PO BOX 100 SACARAMENTO CA 95801 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SUITE B ROBERT L. ERWIN, DIRECTOR 9771 CALAIREMONT MESA BLVD SUITE 1037 SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331 630 SANSOME STREET SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ATTN: GARY RESOURCE CONSERVATIONIST SUITE 102 2121-C SECOND STREET DAVIS CA 95616 ‘)EPARTMENT OF COMMERCE JFFICE OF OCEAN AND COASTAL i McGILVRAY 825 CONNECTICUT AVENUE VASHINGTON DC 20235 SPARTMENT OF DEFENSE UGADIER GENERAL PATRICK KELLY JITE 700 3 MARKET STREET .N FRANCISCO CA 94105 “ARTMENT OF DEFENSE MMANDING OFFICER, WESTERN DIVISION 3ERT FORSYTH, DIRECTOR 30X 727 J BRUNO CA 94066 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION IRWRlN HOFFMANN SUITE F 194 W MAIN STREET WOODLAND CA 95695 COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CHAIRMAN 722 JACKSON PLACE NORTH WEST WASHINGTON DC 2006 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE RICHARD L FRASER TECHNICAL ENGINEERING BRANCH SUITE 700 333 MARKET STREET SAN FRANCISCO CA 94 105 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE LOS ANGELES DISTRICT ENGINEER PO BOX 2711 LOS ANGELES CA 90053 - c ’ DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY JOHN B. MARTIN, REGIONAL DIRECTOR SUITE 210 1450 MARIA LANE WALNUT CREEK CA 94596-5368 U. S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BGB BARNEY 2135 BUTANO DRIVE SACRAMENTO CA 95825 U. S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION LOWER COLORADO REGION PO BOX 427 BOULDER CITY CO 89005 BRIAN O’NEILL, SUPERINTENDENT GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA BUILDING 201 FORT MASON SAN FRANCISCO CA 94 123 SUPERINTENDENT CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK 1901 SPINNAKER DRIVE SAN BUENAVENTURA CA 93001 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COMMANDANT, ELEVENTH NAVAL DISTRICT DISTRICT CIVIL ENGINEER SAN DIEGO CA 92132 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PHILLIP LAMMI, CHIEF ROOM 1316 630 SANSOME STREET SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY CLIFFORD EMMERLING, DIRECTOR SUITE 350 901 MARKET STREET SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVE DUNCAN LENT HOWARD, REGIONAL ADMIN 450 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102 U. S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION MID-PACIFIC REGION 2800 COTTAGE WAY SACRAMENTO CA 95825 T BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS RONALD M. JAEGER 2800 COTTAGE WAY SACRAMENTO CA 95825 DOUGLAS WARNOCK, SUPERINTENDENT REDWOOD NATIONAL PARK DRAWERN 1111 2mSTREET CRESCENT CITY CA 95531 CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION u. s. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE SUITE 200 JAMES MCKJZVITT. FIELD SUPERVISOR 3 111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH SUITE 130 SAN DIEGO CA 92108 3310 EL CAMINO AVENUE SACRAMENTO CA 95821 , BARRY BRAYER, AWP-8 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WESTERN REGION PO BOX 92007 LOS ANGELES CA 90009 A notice h&s been mailed to all properiy owners/occupant8 Ii&d here@ Date ~“-pJ-(, [,A x,( / 2, \cq- 1 ‘, \A\ L?J( ix b. / (T( Signature 1 4 CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST 801 PINE AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 SAN DIEGUITO SCHOOL 701 ENCINITAS BLVD ENCINITAS CA 92024 DIST VALLECITOS WATER DIST 788 SAN MARCOS BLVD SAN MARCOS CA 92069 CITY OF SAN MARCOS 1 CIVIC CENTER DR SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME SUITE 50 330 GOLDENSHORE LONG BEACH CA 90802 LAFCO 1600 PACIFIC HWY SAN DIEGO CA 92101 T.W. SMITH, ESQ STE 200 2170 EL CAMINO REAL OCEANSIDE CA 92054 CHARLENE & DAN O’BRIEN 71 LIVERMORE RD BELMONT MA 02178 CITY OF CARLSBAD COMMUNITY SERVICES SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DIST 1 CIVIC CENTER DR SAN MARCOS CA 92069 LEUCADIA CNTY WATER DIST 1960 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 SD COUNTY PLANNING SUITE B 5201 RUFFIN RD SAN DIEGO CA 92123 CITY OF OCEANSIDE 300 NORTH COAST HWY OCEANSIDE CA 92054 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY SUITE B 9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD SAN DIEGO CA 92124-l 331 AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST 9150 CHESAPEAKE DR SAN DIEGO CA 92123 CLERK NO COUNTY SUP COURT CASE NO 69883 325 SO MELROSE DR VISTA CA 92083 (ABOVE ADDRESS - For City Council Notices Only) CITY OF CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT ENCINITAS SCHOOL DIST 101 SO RANCH0 SANTA FE ENCINITAS CA 92024 OLIVENHAIN WATER DIST 1966 OLIVENHAIN RD ENCINITAS CA 92024 CITY OF ENCINITAS 505 S VULCAN AVE ENCINITAS CA 92024 CITY OF VISTA PO BOX 1988 VISTA CA 92085 SANDAG SUITE 800 400 B STREET SAN DIEGO CA 92101 I.P.U.A. SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND URBAN STUDIES SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505 GUY MOORE JR 6503 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92009 CITY OF CARLSBAD ENGINEERING DEPT PROJECT PLANNER ERIC MUNOZ - ~:\ADMIN\LABELS\LCP INTERESTED PARTIES UPDATED 1 l-96 OLlVENHAlN M.W.D. 1966 OLIVENHAIN ROAD ENClNlTAS CA 92024 CRAIG ADAMS SIERRA CLUB SAN DIEGO CHAPTER 3820 RAY SAN DIEGO CA 92101 LESLIE ESPOSITO 1893 AMELFI DRIVE ENCINITAS CA 92024 LANIKAI LANE PARK SHARP; SPACE 3 6550 PONTO DRIVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 KIM SEIBLY SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC PO BOX 1831 SAN DIEGO CA 92112 PERRY A LAMB 890 MERE POINT ROAD BRUNSWICK MAINE 04011 RICHARD RETECKI COASTAL CONSERVANCY SUITE 1100 1330 BROADWAY CAKLAND CA 94612 DALE/DONNA SCHRElBER 7163 ARGONAURA WAY CARLSBAD CA 92009 h CITY OF ENCINITAS COM.DEV. DEPARTMENT 505 S. VULCAN AVE ENCINITAS CA 92024 REGIONAL WATER QUAL. BD EXECUTIVE OFFICER SUITE B 9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD SAN DIEGO CA 92124 GUY MOORE JR 6503 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92009 CYRIL AND MARY GIBSON 12142 ARGYLE DRIVE LOS ALAMITOS CA 90702 JOHN LAMB 1446 DEVLIN DRIVE LOS ANGELES CA 90069 MARY GRIGGS STATE LANDS COMMISSSION SUITE 100 SOUTH 100 HOWE AVE SACRAMENTO CA 95825-8202 SAN DIEGO COUNTY PLANNING & LAND USE DEPT JOAN VOKAC - SUITE B-5 5201 RUFFIN ROAD SAN DIEGO CA 92123 ANTHONY BONS 25709 HILLCREST AVE ESCONDIDO CA 92026 MR/MRS MICHAEL CARDOSA 6491 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92008 TABATA FARMS PO BOX 1338 CARLSBAD CA 92018 KENNETH E SULZER SANDAG - EXEC DIRECTOR IST INT’L PLAZA, SUITE 806 .401 B STREET SAN DIEGO CA 92101 JAN SOBEL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PO BOX 1605 CARLSBAD CA 92008 BILL MCLEAN c/o LAKESHORE GARDENS 7201 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92009 SPIERS ENTERPRISES DWIGHT SPIERS SUITE 139 23 CORPORATE PLAZA NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 SUPERVISOR BILL HORN Al-TN: ART DANELL COUNTY OF SD, ROOM 335 1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY SAN DIEGO CA 92101 LEE ANDERSON CRA PRESIDENT 5200 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92008 FLOYD ASHBY 416 LA COSTA AVE ENCINITAS CA 92024 CARLENE TIMM SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC PO BOX 1831 SAN DIEGO CA 92112 - h . LABELS - 5163 SANDAG (SAN DIEGO COUNTY) LCPA MAILING LIST (GOVERNMENT AGENCIES) WELLS FARGO PLAZA SUITE 800 APPENDIX A (LIST IS REQUIRED BY COASTAL 401 B STREET COMMISSION) SAN DIEGO CA 92101 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL ROOM 700 110 WEST A STREET SANDIEGO CA 92101 PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 350 MCALLISTER STREET SAN FRANCISCO CA 94 103 OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH OFFICE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AFAIRS 1400 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO CA 958 14 DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE STEVE SHAFFER, AGRICULTURE RESOURCES ROOM 100 1220 N STREET SACRAMENTO CA 95814 BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION & HSG AGENCY WILLIAM G. BRENNAN DEPUTY SECRETARY AND SPECIAL COUNCIL SUITE 2450 980 NINTH STREET SACRAMENTO CA 95814 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ROOM 5504 1120 N STREET SACRAMENTO CA 958 14 DISTRICT 11 CALTRANS RESOURCES AGENCY TIM VASQUEZ, ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING RM 1311 2829 SAN JUAN ST 1416 NINTH STREET SAN DIEGO CA 92138 SACRAMENTO CA 95812 - AIR RESOURCES BOARD ANNE GERAGHTY, MANAGER GENERAL PROJECTS SECTION PO BOX 2815 SACRAMENTO CA 958 12 ENERGY RESOURCES, CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION CHUCK NAJARIAN 15 16 NINTH STREET SACRAMENTO CA 95814 MARINE RESOURCES REGION, DR & G ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES SUPERVISOR 350 GOLDEN SHORE LONG BEACH CA 90802 SOUTHERN REGION JOHN WALSTROM, TECHNICAL SERVICES 8885 RIO SAN DIEGO DRIVE SAND DIEGO CA 92108 STATE LANDS COMMISSION DWIGHT SANDERS SUITE 1005 100 HOWE AVE SACRAMENTO CA 95825-8202 COASTAL CONSERVANCY SUITE 1100 1330 BROADWAY OAKLAND CA 94612 DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME DON LOLLOCK, CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION RM 1206-20 1416 NINTH STREET SACRAMENTO CA 95814 DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY DOUG WICKIZER, ENVIROMENTAL COORD RM 1516-2 1416 NINTH STREET SACRAMENTO CA 95814 SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION BILL TRAVIS 30 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO CA 95814 WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD PO BOX 100 SACARAMENTO CA 95801 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SUITE B ROBERT L. ERWIN, DIRECTOR 9771 CALAIREMONT MESA BLVD SUITE 1037 SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331 630 SANSOME STREET SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ATTN: GARY RESOURCE CONSERVATIONIST SUITE 102 2121-C SECOND STREET DAVIS CA 95616 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF OCEAN AND COASTAL L McGILVRAY 1825 CONNECTICUT AVENUE WASHINGTON DC 20235 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS SUITE 700 333 MARKET STREET SANFRANCISCO CA 94105 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY JOHN B. MARTIN, REGIONAL DIRECTOR SUITE 210 1450 MARIA LANE WALNUT CREEK CA 94596-5368 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION IRWRIN HOFFMANN SUITE F 194 W MAIN STREET WOODLAND CA 95695 COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CHAIRMAN 722 JACKSON PLACE NORTH WEST WASHINGTON DC 2006 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE LOS ANGELES DISTRICT ENGINEER PO BOX 2711 LOS ANGELES CA 90053 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COMMANDANT, ELEVENTH NAVAL DISTRICT DISTRICT CIVIL ENGINEER SAN DIEGO CA 92132 .- U. S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 2135 BUTANO DRIVE CLIFFORD EMMERLING, DIRECTOR SACRAMENTO CA 95825 SUITE 350 901 MARKET STREET SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103 U. S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION LOWER COLORADO REGION PO BOX 427 BOULDER CITY CO 89005 SUPERINTENDENT CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK 190 1 SPINNAKER DRJVE SAN BUENAVENTURA CA 93001 BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS RONALD M. JAEGER 2800 COTTAGE WAY SACRAMENTO CA 95825 CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SUITE 200 3 111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH SAN DIEGO CA 92108 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVE DUNCAN LENT HOWARD, REGIONAL ADMIN 450 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102 U. S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION MID-PACIFIC REGION 2800 COTTAGE WAY SACRAMENTO CA 95825 DOUGLAS WARNOCK, SUPERINTENDENT REDWOOD NATIONAL PARK DRAWERN 1111 2m STREET CRESCENT CITY CA 95531 U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE SUITE 130 33 10 EL CAMINO AVENUE SACRAMENTO CA 95821 c - BARRY BRAYER, AWP-8 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WESTERN REGION PO BOX 92007 LOS ANGELES CA 90009