HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-07-25; City Council; 15842; Oscar's Carlsbade 5 E %
. . p 2 =! ii 3
CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL
AB# Ls,g%? TITLE:
MTG. 7 -as-@
DEPT. PLN $h?
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
OSCAR’S CARLSBAD
CUP 99-28/CDP 99-55
CITY .GR* .
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. m0 l &/s APPROVING a Negative
Declaration, Conditional Use Permit (CUP 99-28) and Coastal Deielopment Permit (CDP 99-55) as recommended for approval by the Planning Commission.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On June 21, 2000, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and approved SDP 90-
05(F) and recommended approval of the Negative Declaration, CUP 99-28, and CDP 99-55 for the
Oscar’s Carlsbad project (6-O; Baker absent). The project site is located on a vacant lot within the
Co&co Center, at the southwest corner of the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and Armada
Drive, in the C-2-Q Zone, Mello II Coastal Overlay Zone, Commercial/Visitor Serving Overlay Zone
and in Local Facilities Management Zone 5.
The development proposal would allow for the construction of a 5,250 square foot restaurant with an 1,800 square foot outdoor dining area. At the time the Costco development was approved by SDP
90-05, it was anticipated that the Oscar’s lot would be developed with a 5,000 square foot retail use.
However, the SDP did not restrict the use to retail only. Furthermore, the SDP required that any
future development of the lot would require an amendment to SDP 90-05. A new traffic analysis has
been submitted for the development proposal which indicates that the ADT generated by the
restaurant will not reduce the levels of service of the surrounding roadways and key intersections to
unacceptable levels. Additionally, the joint use parking lots for Costco and Oscar’s have been
evaluated to ensure that adequate parking can be provided for all uses on the site. No further action
by the City Council is required for the SDP application.
The project is located in the new Commercial/Visitor Serving Overlay Zone and therefore requires
approval of a Conditional Use Permit by ‘the City Council. In addition, the Coastal Development
Permit and Negative Declaration also require City Council approval. In that the Planning
Commission has approved the amended site plan, the main focus of the City Council’s review would
include the project’s consistency with the Conditional Use Permit findings and the project’s
compliance with the Commercial/Visitor Serving Overlay Zone standards.
The project has been designed to comply with both the C-2 zone development standards and the more restrictive CommercialNisitor Serving Overlay Zone standards. In order to comply with the
overlay zone, the parking requirement for the project has been calculated at a higher rate; a drop-off
area with enhanced paving is provided at the primary entrance to the restaurant; and the building
has been designed in a Contemporary Southwest Architectural Style and exhibits a high quality of
architectural detailing.
More detailed information regarding the development proposal is included in the attached staff
report to the Planning Commission and Planning Commission minutes.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
A Negative Declaration is proposed for the project. The project is within the scope of the City’s
Master Environmental Impact Report which is utilized to address the project’s cumulative air quality and circulation impacts. The initial study (EIA-Part II) prepared in conjunction with this project
determined that no potentially significant impacts could be created as a result of this project.
I
.- -
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA EjlLL NO. 6 g4.2
Therefore, a Negative Declaration was issued by the Planning Director on April 24, 2000.
FISCAL IMPACT:
All required street and infrastructure improvements needed to serve this project have been
previously installed with the development of the Costco Center.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATUS:
Local Facilities Management Plan 5
Growth Control Point N/A
Net Density N/A
Special Facilities N/A
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resolution No. am& d 45
2. Location Map
3. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4780,4781,4782, and 4783
4. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated June 7, 2000, and June 21, 2000
5. Draft Excerpts of Planning Commission minutes, dated June 21, 2000.
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
RESOLUTION NO. 20oc-245
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW A RESTAURANT ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF PALOMAR AIRPORT
ROAD AND ARMADA DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5.
CASE NAME: OSCARS CARLSBAD
CASE NO.: CUP 99-28/CDP 99-55
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as
follows:
WHEREAS, on June 21, 2000, the Carlsbad Planning Commission held a duly
noticed public hearing to consider a proposed Negative Declaration, Site Development Plan
Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, and Coastal Development Permit to allow for the
development of a 5,250 square foot restaurant with an 1,800 square foot outdoor dining area,
and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 4781 approving the Site Development Plan
Amendment and Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4780, 4782, and 4783 recommending
to the City Council that the Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permit, and Coastal
Development Permit be approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 25th day of
JUlV , 2000, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the recommendation and
heard all persons interested in or opposed to the Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permit,
and Coastal Development Permit; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT 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 recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval of
the Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permit 99-28, and Coastal Development Permit 99-
55 is approved and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4780, 4782 and 4783 on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council.
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
3. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council.
The Provisions of Chapter 1 .I 6 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, “Time Limits for Judicial
Review” shall apply:
“NOTICE TO APPLICANT”
“The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is
governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been
made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code
Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be
filed in the appropriate court no later than the ninetieth day following the
date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days
after the decision becomes final a request for the record of proceedings
accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the
estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time within which such
petition may be filed in court is extended to not latter than the thirtieth day
following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or
mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written
request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed
with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive,
Carlsbad, California 92008.”
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 25th day of JULY , 2000, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Hall, Finnila, Nygaard, and Kulchir
NOES: None
ABSENT: None/')
INE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
-2-
EXHIBIT 2
OSCAR’S CARLSBAD
CUP 99-28lCDP 99-55
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. 4780
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW A
RESTAURANT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF
PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND ARMADA DRIVE IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5.
CASE NAME: OSCAR’S CARLSBAD ”
CASE NO.: SDP 90-05(F)/CUP 99-28/CDP 99-55
WHEREAS, S & C Company, Inc., “Developer,” has filed a verified application
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Pricesmart, Inc., “Owner,” described as
Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 17542, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, June 27,1995
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of June, 2000 and on
the 21st day of June, 2000, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider
said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration
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
according to Exhibit “ND” dated April 24,2000, and “PII” dated April 24, 2000,
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A.
B.
C.
D.
It has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration OSCAR’S
CARLSBAD - SDP 90-05(F)/CUP 99-28/CDP 99-55, the environmental impacts
therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
The Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
Based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st day of June, 2000, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Heineman, L’Heureux,
Nielsen, Segall, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Baker
ABSTAIN:
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4780
City of Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: APN 2 1 l-040-34
Parcel 1 Parcel Map No 17542, City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, June 27,1995.
Project Description: Request for approval of a Site Development Plan amendment,
Conditional Use Permit, and Coastal Development Permit to allow
finish grading and construction of a 5,250 square foot restaurant
with an 1,800 square foot outdoor dining area on a vacant 1.75 acre
in-fill lot located on the southwest comer of the intersection of
Palomar Airport Road and Armada Drive.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the
initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1)
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City
that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a
Negative Declaration 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, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Barbara Kennedy in the Planning Department
at (760) 602-4626.
DATED: APRIL 24,200O
CASE NO: SDP 90-05(F)/CUP 99-28KDP 99-55
CASE NAME: OSCAR’S CARLSBAD
PUBLISH DATE: APRIL 24,200O
MICHAEL J. HOmILkER
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 - (760) 602-4600 l FAX (760) 602-8559
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
CASE NO: SDP 90-05(Fl/CUP 99-28/CDP 99-55
DATE: April 24.2000
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: OSCAR’S CARLSBAD
2. APPLICANT: S & C Companv
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 9823 Pacific Heights, Suite J San
Diego. CA 92121 619-552-4920
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: November 2. 1999
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reauest for aunroval of a site develonment plan amendment,
conditional use uermit. and coastal development permit to allow finish grading and construction
of a 5,250 sauare foot restaurant with an 1,800 sauare foot outdoor dining area on a vacant 1.75
acre in-fill lot located on the southwest comer of the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and
Armada Drive. (APN 2 1 l-040-341
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.
0 Land Use and Planning lxl Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
cl Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources El Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
H Air Quality 0 Noise q Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96 9
DETERMINATION.
III
0
0
lxl
0
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 an earlier Master Environmental
Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Impact Review (MEIR 93-Ol),
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
4 do0 b Planner Signature I I Date
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 explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
a “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.
a “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
0 Based on an “E&Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but fl potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
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.
l 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. 03/28/96
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.
Rev. 03128196
-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
4
b)
cl
4
e)
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)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#l: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 5.6-l - 5.6-18;#2, pg 8)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a)
b)
c)
Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6 $2, pg 8)
Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l -
5.5-6;#2, pg 8)
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) cl
d)
e)
f)
g) h) 0
expose people to potential impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) ;#2, pg 6)
Seismic ground shaking? (#l :Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-5)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1.15 ;#2, pg 6)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15 ;#2, pg 6)
Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-I - 5.1-15 ;#2, pg
6) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1-15 $2, pg 6)
Subsidence of the land?(#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15;#2, pg 6)
Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15 ;#2, pg 6)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15 ;#2, pg 6)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-
11 ;#2, pa 6) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11 ;#2, pg 6)
Potentially Significant
Impact
-0
q
q
0
q
q
q
q
q q q
Ej
0
q
cl q q
q
q
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q q
q
q
q
q q q
q
q
Less Than Significant
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
0
q q q
q
q
q
q q q
q
q
NO Impact
Ix1
lxl
lxl
El
lxl
Ix1
lz
lzl
lxl
lxl
lxl
El
Ix1
lxl
El
El
lxl
lxl
IXI
5 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
cl
4
4
f)
g>
h)
i>
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11 ;#2, pg 6)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11 ; #2, pg 6)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11; #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..2-11; #2, pg 6)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11; #2, pg 6)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-
11;#2,pg6) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.2-l - 5..2-11; #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? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
1 - 5.3-12; #2, pg 6)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l
- 5.3-12)
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. TR4NSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
a>
b)
c>
4
e>
f)
Et>
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-l - 5.7.22; #2, pgs 8,9; #3 pg 8)
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
879) 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?
(#l: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-l -
57.22; #2, pgs 8,9)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
0
lxl
q
q
q
lxl
q
cl
q
III
q
q
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
0
q
q
Less Than
Significant
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
cl.
q
0
q
0
No
Impact
[XI
El
[xl
[xl
lxl
lxl
El
q
Ix]
El
IXI
q
lxl
El
lzl
lxl
lxl
ix]
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
6 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
4
b)
cl
d)
4
VIII.
4
b)
cl
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)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 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? (#l :Pgs 5.4- 1
- 5.4-24; #2, pg 7)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-l - 5.13-9; #2, pg 7)
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
1 - 5.13-9; #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 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5
& 5.13-1 - 5.13-9; #2, pg 7)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
4
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-l - 5.10.1-5;
#2, pg 8) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-I -
5.10.1-5; #2, pg 9)
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5; #2, pg 8)
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5; #2, pg 8)
Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5; #2, pg 8)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-l - 5.9-
15; #2, pg 8) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
1 - 5.9-15; #2, pg 8)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-l - 5.12.5-6; #2, pg 7)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4; #2, pg7)
c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5; #2, pg 7)
Potentially Significant
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
cl
q
q q q
Potentially Significant
Unless
Mitigation Incorporated q
q
q
.u
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q q q
Less Than Significant
Impact
q
0
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
0
q q 0
No
Impact
Ix]
lxl
El
(XI
lxl
lxl
lxl
I8
El
lxl
lxl la lxl
7 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d)
e)
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (#l,
pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7; #2, pg 7)
Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -
5.12.8-7; #2, pg 7)
XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
a>
b)
c)
4
d
f)
9)
XIII.
4
b)
c)
XIV.
a)
b)
c>
4
e>
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-I - 5.13-9; #2, pg 7)
Communications systems? (#l: pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.8-7;
#Z Pg 7) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7; #2, pg 8)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7; #2,
Pg 8) Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8; #2, pg 8)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3; #2,
pg 8) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-I -
5.12.3-7; #2, pg 8)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5%
10; #2, pg 7) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5%
10; #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? (#l:Pgs
5.8-1 - 5.8-10; #2, pg 7)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10; #2, pg 7)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
4
b)
XVI.
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
5.12.8-7; #2, pg 9)
Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l :Pgs
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7; #2, pg 9)
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
lxl
lzl
tzl
El
I%
[XI
lxl
ISI
lxl
El
lxl
lxl
Ix1
lxl
lxl
IXI
lxl
El
IXI
8 Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
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?
(“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,
either directly or indirectly?
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis has been conducted on two occasions. First, the General Plan Update (GPA 94-
01) and related Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR 93-01) reviewed the potential
impacts of buildout of the City’s General Plan, including transportation and air quality impacts.
Secondly, the Conditional Negative Declaration dated February 28, 1991 reviewed the potential
development impacts on the original Price Club project which included the subject property.
Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant
Impact Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
El 0
cl cl
0 0
Less Than No Significant lmpacr
Impact
0 txl
0 lxl
0 lxl
Since the project involves the construction of a restaurant on an existing pre-graded pad, the
potential impacts in the area 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; cultural resources have 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
adequately 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.
The potential visual aesthetic impacts of the restaurant were not fully addressed in the previous
environmental reviews, therefore, these potential impacts are analyzed in this environmental
review. In addition, the original approval analyzed the site as a potential 5,000 square foot retail
site. The current proposal for a restaurant creates additional traffic impacts and parking
requirements that were not analyzed under the previous Conditional Negative Declaration.
Therefore, a subsequent Negative Declaration is proposed.
9 Rev. 03/28/96 17
-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site is a 1.75 acre in-fill lot designated R (Regional Commercial) by the General
Plan. The property was rough graded in conjunction with the development of the Price Club
(Costco) site in 1992. The central and west side of the existing pad is generally flat. The
surrounding slopes on the south and east sides do not exceed 5 feet in height and are currently
landscaped. The north side of the site slopes upward about 10 feet to Palomar Airport Road and
is also heavily landscaped. There are 70 existing paved parking spaces on the west end of the
parcel.
The north side of the site is adjacent to Palomar Airport Road and the entrance driveway to
Costco (at Armada Drive) is located along the eastern edge of the site. The Costco gas station is
located across a primary drive aisle to the south and the Costco parking lot, with 742 parking
spaces, is located west/southwest of the pad. The Costco building is located about 500 feet
southwest of the subject property.
The development proposal would result in the construction of a 5,250 square foot restaurant,
1,800 square foot covered outdoor eating area, and the installation of 19 additional parking
spaces. The proposed 79.2 finish floor elevation is within 1 foot of the rough graded pad which
is at about the 80 foot contour. Finish grading for the pad will result in the export of
approximately 1,100 cubic yards of soil.
I. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
I. Land Use and Planning
The site’s C-2-Q (Commercial-Qualified Development Overlay) zone designation would allow a
restaurant use with approval of a Site Development Plan amendment. In’ addition, due to the
sites inclusion in the Commercial/Visitor-Serving Overlay Zone, approval of a Conditional Use
Permit will be required. The project will also require approval of a Coastal Development Permit
due to its location within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program, and will be subject
to a condition of approval restricting winter grading.
V. Air Quality
In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR which analyzed the impacts which will result
from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludes that
continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have
cumulative significant impacts in the form of 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 build-out
as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air
quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan build-out, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
10 Rev. 03/28/96
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
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 93-01, 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 projects covered
by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR This
document is available at the Planning Department.
VI. Transportation/Circulation
In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would
result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded
that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will result in
increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-out
traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional
through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all
freeway interchange areas and major intersections along 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 build-out.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out,
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 build-out 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 projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR.
This project is within the scope of that MEIR This document is available at the Planning
*Department.
The property is subject to a reciprocal parking and access agreement with the Costco site. The
proposal has been analyzed to determine if there is adequate parking for both uses on the site. A
11 Rev. 03/28/96 lP
total of 5 13 parking spaces are required for the Costco development and 742 parking spaces are
provided on the Costco site, resulting in an excess parking supply of 229 spaces. The proposed
restaurant will require 103 spaces and 89 spaces will be located on the site. Therefore, the
applicant’s request to utilize 14 spaces from the Costco lot will not adversely impact the required
number of parking spaces for the Costco site.
A traffic study was submitted for the development proposal which indicates that the restaurant
would generate approximately 1,195 ADT. The original Price Club development anticipated a
5,000 square foot retail building on this site that would generate 200 ADT. The study indicates
that the intersections which were analyzed currently operate at LOS C or better with the
exception of Palomar Airport Road/I-5 Northbound which operates at LOS D. Buildout and
buildout plus project projections indicate that the Palomar Airport Road/Armada Drive
intersection will operate at LOS D. The proposed project will add a minimal amount of traffic to
this location in the PM peak hour (96 ADT). The increase in vehicle trips has been analyzed and
based on City traffic studies and the proposed Palomar Airport Corridor Improvements, no
additional mitigation is required. The Engineering Department has required that a condition be
included which would restrict the hours of operation of the restaurant to exclude the period from
6:00 am - 9:00 am. This restriction is an effort to reduce congestion on Palomar Airport Road.
If approved, the condition may be modified at a later date as an administrative amendment based
on a traffic report acceptable to the City Engineer. The report must include findings that levels of
service would not be reduced to an unacceptable standard.
VIII. Aesthetics
The proposed building will be partially hidden from Palomar Airport Road since the building pad
is about 10 feet below the street level. The highest point of the architectural tower elements will
be about 25 feet above Palomar Airport Road and the top of the roof parapet will be about 15 feet
above the road. The primary aesthetic concerns are in regard to any negative visual impacts of
exposed roof equipment or utility areas. The proposed building exhibits a contemporary
southwest architectural style and is compatible with the architectural styles permitted in the
CommerciaWisitor-Serving Overlay. The building has been designed with an equal amount of
architectural detailing on all four sides. The roof equipment will be screened from view by the
building parapet and an architecturally compatible screen wall around the roof equipment.
Views of trash and utility areas have also been screened from view. Therefore, no significant
negative visual impacts will result from the proposed project.
12 Rev. 03128196
EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008,
(760) 602-4600.
1. Final Master Environmental Imuact Renort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-Ol), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. Conditional Negative Declaration for the Price Club (GPA 90-l/ZC go-l/SDP 90-5/CUP 90-
3/HDP 90-9iMS 837), dated February 28, 1991, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
3. Traffic Imnact Analvsis for Oscar’s in the Citv of Carlsbad, dated September 1999,
O’Rourke Engineering.
13 Rev. 03128196 a
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. 4781
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CAIUSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SITE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (SDP 90-05[F])TO
ALLOW A RESTAURANT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE
INTERSECTION OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND
ARMADA DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 5.
CASE NAME: OSCAR’S CARLSBAD
CASE NO.: SDP 90-05(F)
WHEREAS, S & C Company, Inc., “Developer,” has filed a verified application
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Pricesmart, Inc., “Owner,” described as
Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 17542, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, June 27,1995
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Site Development
Plan Amendment as shown on Exhibits “A” - “J” dated June 7, 2000, on file in the Planning
Department, OSCAR’S CARLSBAD - SDP 90-05(F) as provided by Chapter 21.06Kection
21.53.120 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 7th day of June, 2000 and on
the 21st day of June, 2000, 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
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
W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission APPROVES OSCAR’S CARLSBAD - SDP 90-05(F) based on
the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
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:
A.
B.
C.
D.
The requested use is necessary and desirable for the development of the
community in that the restaurant will provide a service for the residential,
tourist, and business communities; and
The project is in harmony with various elements of the General Plan in that
the underlying Regional Commercial (R) land use designation encourages
convenient services that may be associated with a regional commercial
center; and
The project is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically
permitted in the zone in that the proposal does not produce any on-site
parking or circulation impacts to the Costco center and the project
incorporates the required development standards of the Commercial/Visitor
Serving Overlay Zone which ensures compatibility of the project with the
community; and
The project will not adversely impact the traffic circulation in that the
restaurant will generate an additional 1,195 ADT which will not impact the
levels of service of the surrounding roadways and key intersections to an
unacceptable level.
That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in
that the 1.75 acre site can accommodate the proposed restaurant without disrupting
the existing internal circulation or diminishing parking below that required by the
zoning ordinance.
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 project complies with all development standards
required by the C-2 zone and Commercial/Visitor Serving Overlay Zone, the
building has been designed to exhibit a Contemporary Southwestern Architectural
Style, roof equipment has been adequately screened from view, and adequate
landscape buffers have been provided around the building.
That the street systems serving the proposed use are adequate to properly handle all
traffic generated by the proposed use, in that the traffic impacts of the proposed
restaurant have been adequately evaluated in a traffic study and the 1,195 ADT
PC PESO NO. 4781 -2- 63
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
generated by the proposed restaurant will not impact the levels of service of the
surrounding roadways and key intersections to an unacceptable level.
5. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in
conformance with the Elements of the City’s General Plan based on the facts set forth in
the staff report dated June 7,200O including, but not limited to the following:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Land Use - The project is consistent with the (R) Regional Commercial General
Plan Designation in that the project is a commercial service use adjunct to a
regional center and will serve the daily convenience needs of customers.
Circulation - The levels of service of adjacent roadways indirectly serving the
project will not be reduced to unacceptable levels by the traffhz generated by
the proposed restaurant (1,195 ADT) and the on-site parking and circulation
system has been adequately designed and landscaped.
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 projects may have to pay a linkage fee, in order to be
found consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan.
Open Space & Conservation - The project will conform to all NPDES
requirements and Best Management Practices.
Public Safety - The restaurant will be designed and constructed in
conformance with all seismic design standards.
Parks & Recreation - The payment of park impact fees from non-residential
development within LFMP Zone 5 provides for future park lands in the area.
6. The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 5 and all City public facility policies and
ordinances. The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or
provide funding to ensure that all facilities and improvements regarding: sewer collection
and treatment; water; drainage; circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational
facilities; libraries; government administrative facilities; and open space, related to the
project will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrent with need.
Specifically,
A. The project has been conditioned to provide proof from the Carlsbad Unified
School District that the project has satisfied its obligation for school facilities.
B. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will be
collected prior to the issuance of building permit.
C. The Local Facilities Management fee for Zone 5 is required by Carlsbad
Municipal Code Section 21.90.050 and will be collected prior to issuance of
building permit.
PC RESO NO. 4781 -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
7.
8.
9.
10.
The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the
McClellan-Palomar Airport, dated April 1994, in that as conditioned the applicant shall
record an avigation easement. The project is compatible with the projected noise levels
of the CLUP; and, based on the noise/land use compatibility matrix of the CLUP, the
proposed land use is compatible with the airport in that the indoor and outdoor CNEL
of 60-65 dBA is acceptable to the proposed indoor and outdoor uses associated with
the restaurant.
That the project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual (Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 14.28.020 and Landscape Manual Section I B).
The project is in compliance with the Scenic Corridor Guidelines as they apply to
Palomar Airport Road. The project includes a 50 foot wide landscaped setback adjacent
to Palomar Airport Road, the parking area is below the grade of Palomar Airport Road,
the building has been designed with a high quality of architectural detailing, and the
proposed roof equipment screen has been architecturally integrated into the overall
building design.
The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
Conditions:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a
building permit.
1. If any of the following 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 granted; 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.
2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the 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 the final action on the project.
Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
3. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
4. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project
PC RESO NO. 4781 -4- 25-
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
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
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.
Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold
harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and
representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims
and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the City arising, directly
or indirectly, from: (a) City’s approval and issuance of this Site Development Plan
Amendment, Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit; and, (b)
City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-
discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein.
Developer shall submit to the Planning Director a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar copy
of the Oscar’s Restaurant Site Plan and the amended Site Plan for SDP 90-05(F)
reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making body.
Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plan check, a
reduced legible version of all approving resolutions in a 24” x 36” blueline drawing
format (including any applicable Coastal Commission approvals).
Developer shall provide proof to the Director from the School District that this project
has satisfied its obligation to provide school facilities.
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.
Approval of SDP 90-05(F) supplements the approvals of SDP 90-05, SDP 90-05(A),
SDP 90-05(R), SDP 90-05(C) and SDP 90-05(D). All conditions of approval of
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 3209, 3913, 4605, and 4143, dated April 3,
1991; April 3, 1996; March 19, 1997; and August 6, 1997; respectively, remain in
full force and effect except as modified herein.
This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Negative Declaration, CUP 99-
28, and CDP 99-55 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission
Resolutions 4780,4782, and 4783 for those other approvals.
Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing
water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that
adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the
time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and
facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy.
Housing (Non-Residential)
13. 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
PC RESO NO. 4781 -5- a
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
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.
Landscape
14. Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of a Final Landscape and
Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and
the City’s Landscape Manual. The Developer shall construct and install all landscaping
as shown on the approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a healthy and
thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris.
15. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the
landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Department and accompanied by the
project’s building, improvement, and grading plans.
16. Any existing landscape or irrigation which may be damaged during construction
shall be replaced in kind.
Notice
17. Developer shall report, in writing, to the Planning Director within 30 days, any address
change from that which is shown on the permit application.
18. Developer shall submit to the City a Notice of Restriction to be filed in the office of the
County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, notifying all
interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Site
Development Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, and Coastal Development
Permit by Resolutions No. 4780, 4782, and 4783 on the real property owned by the
Developer. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the
file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as any
conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The
Planning Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice
which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer
or successor in interest.
19. Developer shall record an Avigation Easement for the property to the County of San
Diego and file a copy of the recorded document with the Planning Director.
. . .
PC RESO NO. 4781 -6- 27
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
Onsite Conditions - Specific
20. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
project within 24 months from the date of project approval.
21. The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements
pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code.
22. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and
concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in
substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the
Directors of Community Development and Planning.
23. Developer shall construct trash receptacle and recycling areas enclosed by a six-foot high
masonry wall with gates pursuant to City Engineering Standards and Carlsbad Municipal
Code Chapter 21.105. 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.
24. No outdoor storage of materials shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief.
When so required, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval of the Fire Chief and
the Planning Director of an Outdoor Storage Plan, and thereafter comply with the
approved plan.
25. Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of an exterior lighting plan
including parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid
any impacts on adjacent homes or property.
26. No signs or advertising shall be permitted on the awnings.
Engineering
General
27. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site
within this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the City Engineer
for the proposed haul route.
28. Developer shall comply with the requirements of the City’s anti-graffiti program for wall
treatments if and when such a program is formally established by the City.
29. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for
recordation the City’s standard form Drainage Hold Harmless Agreement regarding
drainage across the adjacent property.
30. Developer shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Developer shall provide improvements constructed
pursuant to best management practices as referenced in the “California Storm Water Best
Management Practices Handbook” to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level
PC PESO NO. 4781 -7- a?
prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be submitted to
and subject to the approval of 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.
31. This development shall share in the operational cost and maintenance responsibility
of the existing Costco Urban Pollutant Basin. An annual report of maintenance and
effectiveness shall be submitted to the City for review.
32. The applicant shall pay the Traffic Impact Fees required for this use. The fees shall
be based upon current traffic generation rates as identified in SANDAG Generators
for a sit down high turnover restaurant.
Water
33. The developer shall meet with Deputy City Engineer-Design to coordinate the application
to the Vallecitos Water District to connect to their Interceptor Sewer.
34. All landscape shall be designed to be irrigated with recycled water in accordance with
CMWD standards and City ordinances.
35. The entire building must be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system.
Standard Code Reminders
Note: The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not
limited to the following code requirements:
36. Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy
#17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section
5.09.030, and CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable
PC PESO NO. 4781 -8- CH
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
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 5, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such
taxes/fees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxes/fees and not paid, this
approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.
Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the
Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building
permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
Addresses, approved by the Building Official, 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, as required by Carlsbad
Municipal Code Section 18.04.320.
Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance
with the City’s Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the Planning
Director prior to installation of such signs.
Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to
prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance
with the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the City Engineer.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given
a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
. . .
PC RESO NO. 478 1 -9- 30
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st day of June, 2000, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compaq Commissioners Heineman, L’Heureux,
Nielsen, Segall, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Baker
ABSTAIN:
d&&
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4781 -lO-
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. 4782
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP 99-l 5 TO
ALLOW A RESTAURANT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE
INTERSECTION OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND
ARMADA DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 5. . .
CASE NAME: OSCAR’S CARLSBAD
CASE NO.: CUP 99-28
WHEREAS, S & C Company, Inc., “Developer,” has filed a verified application
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Pricesmart, Inc, “Owner,” described as
Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 17542, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the Oftke of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, June 27,1995
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Conditional Use
Permit as shown on Exhibits “A” - “J” dated June 7, 2000, on file in the Carlsbad Planning
Department, OSCAR’S CARLSBAD - CUP 99-28, as provided by Chapters 21.42, 21.50, and
21.208 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 7th day of June, 2000 and on
the 21st day of June, 2000, 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 CUP.
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.
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) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of OSCAR’S CARLSBAD - CUP 99-28, based
on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
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:
A. The requested use is necessary and desirable for the development of the
community in that the restaurant will provide a service for the residential,
tourist, and business communities; and
B. The project is in harmony with various elements of the General Plan in that
the underlying Regional Commercial land use designation encourages
convenient services that may be associated with a regional commercial
center; and
C. The project is not detrimental to existing uses or uses specifically permitted
in the zone in that the proposal does not produce any on-site parking or
circulation impacts to the Costco center and the project incorporates the
required development standards of the Commercial/Visitor Serving Overlay
Zone which ensures compatibility of the project with the community.
2. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in
that the 1.75 acre site can accommodate the proposed restaurant without disrupting
the existing internal circulation or diminishing parking below that required 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 project complies with all development standards
required by the C-2 zone and Commercial/Visitor Serving Overlay Zone, the
building has been designed to exhibit a Contemporary Southwestern Architectural
Style, roof equipment has been adequately screened from view, and adequate
landscape buffers have been provided around the building.
4. That the street systems serving the proposed use are adequate to properly handle all
traffic generated by the proposed use, in that the project will generate 1,195 ADT,
which will not impact the levels of service of the surrounding roadways and key
intersections to an unacceptable level.
Commercial Visitor-Serving Overlay Findings
5. That the proposed project is adequately designed to accommodate the high percentage of
visitor, tourist, and shuttle bus/alternative transportation users anticipated given the
proposed use and site location within the overlay zone, in that the on-site circulation
system has been adequately designed to accommodate the flow of traffic without
PC PESO NO. 4782 -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
creating conflicts between uses, a passenger drop-off/pick-up area has been
incorporated into the project to accommodate visitor, tourist, and shuttle bus
transportation, and enhanced paving has been provided in the primary drive
entrance to provide a “pedestrian friendly” zone between the parking lot and
restaurant.
6. That the building forms, building colors and building materials combine to provide an
architectural style of development that will add to the objective and high quality
architecture and building design within the overlay zone, in that the proposed
contemporary southwest architectural design is complementary to the surrounding
buildings in the vicinity, and the building design reflects a high quality through the
use of architectural details and a variety of building forms.
7. That the project complies with all development and design criteria of the overlay zone, in
that the project complies with the parking requirements, sign allowances, building
height, building setback, building colors/materials, architectural style, and
landscaping requirements of Section 21.208 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Conditions:
1. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Negative Declaration, SDP 90-
05(F), and CDP 99-55 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission
Resolutions 4780,4781, and 4783 for those other approvals.
2.
3.
If, at any time, the City Council, Planning Commission or Planning Director determine
that there has been, or may be, a violation of the findings or conditions of this
Conditional Use Permit, or of the Municipal Code regulations, a public hearing may be
held before the City Council to review this permit. At said hearing, the City Council may
add additional conditions, recommend additional enforcement actions, or revoke the
permit entirely, as necessary to ensure compliance with the Municipal Code and the intent
and purposes of the Commercial Visitor-Serving Overlay Zone, and to provide for the
health, safety and general welfare of the City.
This Conditional Use Permit is granted for a period of ten years. 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 ten 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.
4. 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
PC RESO NO. 4782 -3- 34
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
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.
5. All exterior lighting shall be shielded or oriented in such a way so as to reflect downward
and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property.
6. Trash containers shall be contained within a six-foot high enclosure.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given
a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
. . .
PC RESO NO. 4782 -4- J5--
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st day of June, 2000, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Heineman, L’Heureux,
Nielsen, Segall, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Baker
ABSTAIN:
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chaiberson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HmZMELER
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4782 -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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4783
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIF.ORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CDP 99-
05 TO ALLOW A RESTAURANT ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
THE INTERSECTION OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND
ARMADA DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 5.
CASE NAME: OSCAR’S CARLSBAD
CASE NO.: CDP 99-55
WHEREAS, S & C Company, Inc., “Developer,” has filed a verified application
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Pricesmart, Inc, “Owner,” described as
Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 17542, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, June 27,1995
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal
Development Permit as shown on Exhibits “A” - “J” dated June 7,2000, on file in the Planning
Department, OSCAR’S CARLSBAD - CDP 99-55 as provided by Chapter 21.201.040 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 7th day of June, 2000 and on
the 21st day of June, 2000, 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 CDP.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
4 That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
37
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)
FindinPs:
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of OSCAR’S CARLSBAD - CDP 99-55 based
on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
1. That the proposed development is in conformance with the Mello II Segment of the
Certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) and all applicable policies in that the site is
designated as a commercial site and is consistent with the LCP Land Use Plan.
2. The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3
of the Coastal Act in that the project is located outside of the coastal shoreline
development overlay zone. Therefore, compliance with the public access and
recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act is not required.
3. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection
Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.03 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that the project will
adhere to the City’s Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan
and Grading Ordinance to avoid increased runoff and soil erosion, no steep slopes
or native vegetation is located on the subject property and the site is not located in
an area prone to landslides, or susceptible to accelerated erosion, floods or
liquefaction.
4. The project is not located in the Coastal Agriculture Overlay Zone, according to Map X
of the Land Use Plan, certified September 1990 and, Agricultural Conversion
Mitigation Fees are not required in accordance with the provisions of the Coastal
Agriculture Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.202 of the Zoning Ordinance).
5. The project is not located between the sea and the first public road parallel to the sea and,
therefore, is not subject to the provisions of the Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay
Zone (Chapter 2 1.204 of the Zoning Ordinance).
Conditions:
1. The applicant shall apply for and be issued building permits for this project within two
(2) years of approval or this coastal development permit will expire unless extended per
Section 2 1.201.2 10 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
2. If a grading permit is required, all grading activities shall be completed by October 1st.
Grading activities shall be limited to the “dry season”, April 1st to October 1st of each
year. Grading activities may be extended to November 15th upon written approval of the
City Engineer and only if all erosion control measures are in place by October 1 st.
3. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Negative Declaration, SDP 90-
05(F) and CUP 99-28 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission
Resolutions 4780,4781, and 4782 for those other approvals.
PC RESO NO. 4783 -2- 38
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
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given
a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
~ Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st day of June, 2000, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Heineman, L’Heureux,
Nielsen, Segall, and Trigas
I NOES:
~ ABSENT: Commissioner Baker
ABSTAIN:
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chair$erson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOtiM
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4783 -3- 39
_ ,-
I he City of Carlsbad Planning Department EXHIB T + & A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION i “-
Item No. 4 0
Application complete date: April 26, 2000
P.C. AGENDA OF: June 7,200O Project Planner: Barbara Kennedy
Project Engineer: Jeremy Riddle
S1 3JECT: SDP 90-05(FYCUP 99-28/CDP 99-55 - OSCAR’S CARLSBAD - Request for a
recommendation of approval for a Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permit
and Coastal Development Permit; and approval of a Site Development Plan
Amendment, to allow finish grading and construction of a restaurant located on a
vacant pad within the Costco center on the southwest comer of the intersection of
Palomar Airport Road and Armada Drive in the C-2-Q zone, within the City’s
Coastal Zone, the CommerciaWisitor Serving Overlay Zone, and Local Facilities
Management Zone 5.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4780,478l and
4782 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permit
CUP 99-28, and Coastal Development Permit CDP 99-55; and Resolution No. 4783
APPROVING Site Development Plan Amendment SDP 90-05(F), based on the findings and
subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
The applicant is requesting approval of a Site Development Plan Amendment and a
recommendation of approval from the Planning Commission to the City Council for a
Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit to allow the construction of an Oscar’s
restaurant on a 1.75 acre pad within the Costco center in the C-2-Q zone in Local Facilities
Management Zone 5. Findings required to approve the Site Development Plan Amendment,
Conditional Use Permit, and Coastal Development Permit can be made, and the project is
consistent with the General Plan, the Commercial/Visitor Serving Overlay Zone, relevant LCP
policies, and relevant zoning regulations of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The subject site is located within the Costco center at the southwest comer of Palomar Airport
Road and Armada Drive. At the time that SDP 90-05 was approved for the center, it was
anticipated that the 1.75 acre site would be developed with a 5,000 square foot retail building.
However, the SDP did not restrict the use of the pad to retail only. The SDP required that in
order to proceed with any development on the pad, an SDP amendment is required. Therefore,
the applicant is now requesting a site development plan amendment in conjunction with a
conditional use permit and coastal development permit to allow a 5,250 square foot restaurant
with 1,800 square feet of outdoor dining.
. .
SDP 90-05(F)/CUP 99-2b/1DP 99-55 - OSCAR’S CARLSBAD
June 7,200O
The site is bounded on the north by Palomar Airport Road; on the south by the Costco gas
station, on the east by the entrance road to Costco and a vacant Planned Industrial site beyond,
and on the west/southwest by the Costco parking lot and the Costco building. The site consists
of a rough-graded pad on the east half of the lot with 70 existing parking spaces located on the
west half of the lot. Slopes ranging up to 5 feet in height provide a transition from the pad to the
surrounding sidewalk on the east and south. The north side of the site slopes upward towards
Palomar Airport Road approximately 10 feet. Ornamental landscaping and trees are established
on the slopes and the graded pad area is devoid of any significant vegetation. Finish grading for
the site will result in about 1,100 cubic yards of export. The proposed finished floor elevation of
the building is about one foot lower than the existing graded pad.
The proposed building is located in the northeast comer of the lot with the parking lot located to
the west. Nineteen new parking spaces are proposed along the northern edge of the property.
The single-story, 5,250 square foot restaurant exhibits a Contemporary Southwest Architectural
Style that is consistent with the Commercial/Visitor-Serving Overlay guidelines. The building
features a two-toned off-white/light tan color stucco exterior with a combination of flat-roof and
pitched-roof elements. The top-of-parapet, adjacent to the flat roof areas, is 24.5 feet high. Four
35-foot high stuccoed accent towers, with low-pitched hip roofs, are located on each side of the
building. The parapet and tower elements combine with a roof screen to obscure the roof
equipment from surrounding views. An 1,800 square foot outdoor dining area, located to the
south of the building, is enclosed by a 2 foot high stucco wall topped with 3 feet of plexi-glass
and is covered with a mission tile roof supported by stuccoed columns. A variety of details, such
as columns, arched elements, exposed rafters, pre-cast cornices and corbels, multi-paired
windows, and “Juliet” balconies enhance the architectural design. The architectural style is
consistent with and complementary to many of the surrounding buildings, including Grand
Pacific Resorts and the Carl Strauss Brewery Restaurant.
The existing trees within the parking lot and perimeter of the site will be incorporated into the
new landscape plan. Broadleaf evergreen canopy trees are proposed near the new parking areas
and south of the outdoor dining area. Queen palms are proposed as an accent tree along the east
side of the building and as a focal point at the building entrance. Foundation and accent plants
consist of tree ferns, pygmy date palms, and heavenly bamboo in addition to a variety of colorful
shrubs and groundcovers. The landscape plan provides a 50 foot wide landscape buffer between
the outdoor dining area and the primary drive aisle and gas station. Enhanced paving, which
accents the entry to the restaurant, provides a “pedestrian friendly” connection from the parking
lot to the building and is also incorporated into the design of the passenger drop-off turnout.
The proposed project is subject to the following land use plans, policies, programs, and zoning
regulations:
A. General Plan - R (Regional Commercial)
B. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 21 (Zoning Ordinance) including:
1. Chapter 2 1.208 (CommerciaWisitor Serving Overlay Zone)
2. Chapter 21.28 (C-2 General Commercial Zone)
-
SDP 90-OS(F)/CUP 99-2o/cDP 99-55 - OSCAR’S CARLSBAD
June 7,200O
Page 3
3. Chapter 21.42 (Conditional Uses)
4. Chapter 21.06 (Qualified Overlay Zone)
C. Site Development Plan SDP 90-05
D. Scenic Corridor Guidelines
E. McClellan Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan
F. Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program, Coastal Development Procedures and the
Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.201 and 2 1.203
G. Growth Management (Local Facilities Management Zone 5)
IV. ANALYSIS
The recommendation of approval for 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 the regulations/policies utilizing both text and tables.
A. General Plan
The following Table 1 identifies General Plan goals and objectives relevant to the proposed
project and indicates the compliance of the proposal.
TABLE 1 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
ELEMENT
Land Use
Circulation
USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL
OBJECTIVE, OR PROGRAM
Site is designated for Regional
Commercial land uses.
Provision of an adequate circulation
infrastructure concurrent with or
prior to the actual demand for such
facilities.
Provision of safe, adequate, and
attractively landscaped parking
facilities.
Achieve a balance between jobs and
housing appropriate to those wages.
PROPOSED USES & 1 COMPLY?
IMPROVEMENTS
The project is a commercial
service use adjunct to a
regional center and will serve
the daily convenience needs of
customers.
Yes
Yes The levels of service of.
adjacent roadways indirectly
serving the project will not be reduced to unacceptable levels
by the traffic generated by the proposed restaurant.
The on-site parking and
circulation system has been
adequately designed and
landscaped
Project is conditioned with
standard non-residential
Yes
affordable housing linkage fee.
SDP 90-05(F)/CUP 99-2b/cDP 99-55 - OSCAR’S CARLSBAD
June 7,200O
Open Space &
Conservation
Public Safety
Parks and
Recreation
Utilize Best Management Practices
for control of storm water and to
protect water quality.
Design all structures in accordance
with the seismic design standards of
the UBC and State building
requirements.
To finance future public parks and
recreation facilities.
The project will conform to all
NPDES requirements and best
Management Practices.
The restaurant building will be
designed in conformance with
all seismic design standards.
Project is conditioned to pay
non-residential park impact fee
for Zone
B-l/B-2/C Commercial/Visitor Serving Overlay Zone / General Commercial Zone /
Site Development Plan SDP 90-05(F)
The project site is located in the C-2 (General Commercial Zone) and the Commercial/Visitor
Serving Overlay Zone. The project is considered a commercial use and is required to comply
with the Commercial/Visitor-Serving Overlay Zone design and development standards (Chapter
21.208). In addition, the project is subject to the previous approvals for SDP 90-05, including
mitigation measures included in the Conditional Negative Declaration. If the Commission
approves the development proposal, new Planning Commission Resolution 478 1 approving SDP
90-05(F) will supplement the approvals contained in the previous resolutions.
In order to find that the proposed restaurant use is still consistent with the intent, findings, and
conditions of the original SDP, parking and traffic issues surfaced as primary concerns. The
traffic study and parking analysis for the original Price Club (Costco) project analyzed the
Oscar’s site as a 5,000 square foot retail use. A shared parking and access agreement binds the
two sites and adequate parking to serve both uses is required. The proposed restaurant use
creates a higher parking demand and a higher traffic generation rate than the previously
anticipated retail use. Therefore, the parking requirements and ADT need to be reevaluated in
order to assure that adequate parking can be provided and that the level of service (LOS) of the
affected roadways and intersections will not decrease to unacceptable levels.
Parking
The Costco site has a total of 742 spaces and 513 spaces are required for the Costco uses which
currently exist. The Oscar’s restaurant requires 103 spaces. The Oscar’s site has been designed
to include 19 new parking spaces for a total of 89 parking spaces (70 existing and 19 new). The
14 additional spaces required for Oscar’s would be provided through the shared parking
agreement. In contrast, a 5,000 square foot retail use would require 17 parking spaces. The
following table compares the parking requirements for the two scenarios.
SDP 90-05(F)/CUP 99-2blc:DDP 99-55 - OSCAR’S CARLSBAD
June 7,200O
TABLE 2- PARKING ANALYSIS
SCENARIO 1
Costco
Oscars
# OF SPACES # OF SPACES
REQUIRED PROVIDED
513 742
103 89
“EXTRA” SPACES
229
-14
SCENARIO 2
Costco 513 742 229
5,000 s.f. retail 17 70 53
Total: 530 812 282
Adequate parking for both Costco and Oscars can be provided although the number of “extra”
spaces is reduced in comparison with the retail scenario. Based on observations of the site on
numerous occasions, it is apparent that the parking within the center is more than adequate. As
would be assumed, parking spaces near Costco are more heavily used, while those on the Oscar’s
site are rarely occupied. The exception to this typical scenario is during major holidays such as
Thanksgiving and Christmas. Given that under the current proposal a total of 215 “extra”
parking spaces are provided, it is anticipated that the parking required for the proposed Oscar’s
restaurant will not significantly impact the availability of parking spaces for Costco shoppers.
Traffic
A traffic study was submitted for the development proposal which indicates that the restaurant
would generate approximately 1,195 ADT. The original Price Club traffic study anticipated a
5,000 square foot retail building on this site that would generate 200 ADT. The new study
indicates that the intersections which were analyzed currently operate at LOS C or better with the
exception of Palomar Airport Road/I-5 Northbound which operates at LOS D. Buildout and
buildout plus project projections indicate that the Palomar Airport Road/Armada Drive
intersection will operate at LOS D. The proposed project will add a minimal amount of traffic to
this location in the PM peak hour (96 ADT). The increase in vehicle trips has been analyzed and
based on City traffic studies and the proposed Palomar Airport Corridor Improvements, no
additional mitigation is required. The Engineering Department has required that a condition be
included which would restrict the hours of operation of the restaurant to exclude the period from
6:00 am - 9:00 am Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. This restriction is an effort to
reduce congestion on Palomar Airport Road. If approved, the condition may be modified at a
later date as an administrative amendment by the City Engineer based on a traffic report and
findings that levels of service would not be reduced to an unacceptable standard.
The project has also been evaluated for compliance with the new Commercial/Visitor Serving
Overlay Zone standards and the C-2 development standards. The project has been analyzed
using the most restrictive standards. Compliance with these standards is summarized in the table
below.
SDP 90-05(F)/CUP 99-2bLDP 99-55 - OSCAR’S CARLSBAD
June 7,200O
TABLE 3 - DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY TABLE
STANDARD
PARKING
(CommerciaWisitor Serving
Overlay Zone)
REQUIRED PROJECT COMPLIANCE
. Restaurant: 20 spaces plus l/50 l 89 spaces provided on Oscar’s
sq. ft in excess of 2,000 sq. ft. parcel, 14 spaces used from
(85 spaces) excess spaces within the Costco
Outdoor dining: l/100 sq. ft parking lot for a total of 103
(18 spaces) required spaces.
l Shuttle bus circulation and l Independent shuttle bus and
passenger drop-off/pick-up passenger drop-off/pick-up
facilities recommended. facilities provided at entrance to
restaurant.
SIGNS
(CommerciaWisitor Serving
Overlay Zone)
BUILDING HEIGHT
(C-2 zone)
(CommerciaWisitor Serving
Overlay Zone)
BUILDING SETBACKS
(Commercial/Visitor Serving
Overlay Zone)
BLDG. MATERIALS/COLORS
(CommerciaWisitor Serving
Overlay Zone)
ARCHITECTURAL STYLE
(Commercial/Visitor Serving
Overlay Zone)
LIGHTING
(SDP 90-05)
. 1 sq. ft per lineal foot of bldg. l Signage proposed = 50 sq. ft.
frontage
(max allowed = 54 sq. ft.)
l Max. 35 foot building height l 35 feet to highest point
w 24.5 feet to top of parapet
0 Screen rooftop equipment l Roof equipment adequately
screened
l 50 foot setback from Palomar l 60’ setback to trash enclosure
Airport Road wall from PAR r.o.w.
. 72’-9”setback to face of
building wall from PAR r.o.w.
. 10 foot side and rear setback l Greater than 10 feet to all
structures from side and rear
property lines
l Minimum 30’ x 30’ decorative l Over 1,700 sq. ft. of decorative
paving in the primary driveway paving at primary driveway
approach (900 sq. ft.) approach and drop-off area at
building entrance
l High quality materials l Mission tile roof/stucco
exterior, pre-cast concrete
architectural accents
l Primary colors cannot dominate l Primary building colors are off-
building white/light tan. Yellow accent
awnings do not dominate
building
0 Contemporary Southwest l Exhibits Contemporary
Architectural Style Southwest Architectural style
through the use of mission clay
tile, stucco walls, arches,
exposed wooden beams, low-
pitched roofs, multi-paned
windows, glazed/decorative tile,
and stamped concrete paving
. Exterior lighting shall not cause l The project is conditioned to
a glare outside the project area. submit a lighting plan for
review by the Planning
Department to evaluate the
proposed exterior lighting
SDP 90-05(F)/CUP 99-2b/L’DP 99-55 - OSCAR’S CARLSBAD
June 7,200O
LANDSCAPING
(Commercial/Visitor Serving Overlay Zone)
l Parking lot trees at 1 tree per 6 l Parking lot trees:
spaces w/minimum of 50% at 13 existing; 7 new provided at 24 inch box sizes (15 req’d) 100% 24 inch box sizes
l Setback trees at 1 tree per 1000 l Setback trees: existing trees
SF of calculated setback area satisfy requirement and are whninimurn of 50% at 24 inch supplemented with additional
box sizes trees.
l Screening of parking spaces, l Parking lot is located below trash enclosures, etc. PAR road elevation and is
screened by landscaping; trash enclosure is not visible from
adjacent public streets and is
screened with solid roof
element; roof equipment is
screened by the roof parapet and
equipment screen
B-l/B-3/B-4 Commercial/Visitor Serving Overlay Zone / Conditional Use Permit / “Q”
Overlay Zone
A restaurant is a permitted use in the C-2 zone, however, the “Q” Overlay Zone requires
approval of a site development plan, which in this instance will consist of an amendment to the
site development plan for the original Price Club project (SDP 90-05). In addition, commercial
projects located within the Commercial/Visitor Serving Overlay Zone require approval of a
conditional use permit by the City Council. The four findings for both the site development plan
amendment and conditional use permit are nearly identical and the required findings with
justification for each are summarized in this section.
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.
The proposed restaurant is a permitted use in the C-2 zone and will provide a service for the
residential, tourist and business communities. The proposed restaurant is not detrimental to
the existing Costco uses in that it is sited so that it does not produce any on-site parking or
circulation impacts. The project incorporates the required development standards of the
Commercial/Visitor Serving Overlay Zone which ensure compatibility of the project with the community.
2. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use.
The 1.75 acre site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use in that the
restaurant can fit within the existing graded pad area without disrupting the existing internal
circulation or diminishing parking below that required by the Zoning Ordinance. The project
has a shared parking and reciprocal access agreement with the Costco site and the proposal
has been evaluated to ensure that adequate parking can be provided for both uses.
-
SDP 90-05(F)/CUP 99-2b/i’DP 99-55 - OSCAR’S CARLSBAD
June 7,200O
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.
The project complies with all of the development standards and parking requirements of the
CommerciaWisitor Serving Overlay Zone and C-2 zone. Design features necessary to
ensure compatibility with the surrounding development have been incorporated into the
project. For example, the Contemporary Southwestern Architectural Style of building and
the colors/materials have been designed to comply with the requirements of the
Commercial/Visitor Serving Overlay Zone and the architectural style is complementary to
surrounding buildings. Features have been incorporated into the building design to ensure
that the proposed roof equipment will be adequately screened from view. In addition,
adequate setbacks are provided around the building to accommodate landscaping and a 50
foot landscape buffer is provided to screen views from the outdoor eating area towards the
gas station.
4. That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all
traffic generated by the proposed use.
A traffic study was submitted for the development proposal which indicates that the
restaurant would generate approximately 1,195 ADT. The proposed project will add a
minimal amount of traffic to this location in the PM peak hour (96 ADT). The increase in
vehicle trips has been analyzed and based on City traffic studies and the proposed Palomar
Airport Corridor Improvements, the Engineering Department has found that the proposed use
will not reduce the level of service of the surrounding roadways and key intersections to an
unacceptable level and that the existing street system is adequate to properly handle the 1,195
ADT generated by the development proposal.
Together with the above findings, the Commercial/Visitor Serving Overlay Zone requires three
additional findings as follows:
5. That the proposed project is adequately designed to accommodate the high percentage
of visitor, tourist, and shuttle bus/alternative transportation users anticipated given the
proposed use and site location within the overlay zone.
The on-site circulation system has been adequately designed to accommodate the flow of
traffic without creating conflicts between uses. Additionally, the project has been designed
with a passenger drop-off’pick-up area which will accommodate visitor, tourist, and shuttle
bus transportation. Enhanced concrete paving at the primary drive entrance also provides a
“pedestrian friendly” zone for customers walking between the parking lot and the restaurant.
6. That the building form, building colors and building materials combine to provide an
architectural style of development that will add to the objective of high quality
architecture and building design within the overlay zone.
The building has been designed to reflect a Contemporary Southwest Architectural Style and
represents a high quality of architectural design through the use of architectural details and
SDP 90-05(F)/CUP 99-2&iDP 99-55 - OSCAR’S CARLSBAD
June 7,200O
Page 9
building forms which are complementary to many of the surrounding buildings in the
vicinity.
7. That the project complies with all development and design criteria of the overlay zone.
As outlined previously in Table 2, the project meets or exceeds all of the development and
design criteria of the overlay zone including, but not limited to parking, signage, building
height, building setbacks, building design, and landscaping.
D. Scenic Corridor Guidelines
The project is in compliance with the Scenic Corridor Guidelines as they apply to Palomar
Airport Road. The guidelines recommend maintaining substantial, heavily landscaped setbacks
along the roadway to visually soften the impact of adjacent buildings. Landscaping which was
installed for the Costco project provides the required landscape buffer for the Oscar’s parcel. In
addition, all parking areas are located at least 10 feet below the elevation of Palomar Airport
Road. The building has been designed with a high quality of architectural detailing and the
screening design for the proposed roof equipment has been architecturally integrated into the
overall design.
E. McClellan-Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan
Plans for the proposed project were sent to the staff of the San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG) as they serve as staff to the County Airport Land Use Commission.
SANDAG staff, in the attached letter dated May 24,2000, found the project to be consistent with
the McClellan-Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
F. Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program
The 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 and graded pad with
perimeter landscaping. No agricultural or environmentally sensitive lands exist on site. Because
the proposal includes grading, the provisions contained in the Mello II land use policies
prohibiting grading during the winter months (October 1st - April 1st) are included as conditions
of approval. Since the project 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 proposed restaurant is consistent with the Mello II
land use policies and the applicable implementing ordinances.
G. Growth Management
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 5 in the southwest
quadrant of the City. The impacts on public facilities created by the project, and its compliance
with the adopted performance standards, are summarized in the table below.
SDP 90-05(F)/CUP 99-2z&DP 99-55 - OSCAR’S CARLSBAD
June 7,200O
Pane 10
TABLE 3 - GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Fire 1 Station No. 4 Yes
Open Space
Schools
Not Applicable
CUSD
Yes
Yes
Sewer Collection System
Water
34 EDU
7,501 GPD
Yes
Yes
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Earlier analysis of development on the property has been conducted on two occasions. First, the
General Plan Update (GPA 94-01) and related Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR 93-
01) reviewed the potential impacts of buildout of the City’s General Plan, including
transportation and air quality impacts. Secondly, the Conditional Negative Declaration dated
February 28, 1991 reviewed the potential development impacts of the original Price Club project
(SDP 90-05) which included the subject property.
Since the project involves the construction of a restaurant on an existing pre-graded pad, the
potential impacts in the area of land use and planning, population and housing, biological
resources, energy and mineral resources, hazards, public services, utilities and service systems,
and cultural resources have 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 adequately 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.
The original development proposal analyzed the site as a potential 5,000 square foot retail site.
The current proposal for a restaurant creates additional traffic impacts and parking requirements
that were not analyzed under the previous Conditional Negative Declaration. In addition, the
potential visual aesthetic impacts of the restaurant were not fully addressed in the previous
environmental reviews. Therefore, these potential impacts are analyzed through the current environmental documentation. Upon review of the proposed development, 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 April 24, 2000.
No comments were received during the 30 day public review and comment period.
SDP 90-05(F)/CUP 99-2wiDP 99-55 - OSCAR’S CARLSBAD
June 7,200O
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4780 (Neg. Dee;)
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4781 (SDP)
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4782 (CUP)
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4783 (CDP)
5. Location Map
6. Disclosure Form 7. Background Data Sheet
8. Local Facilities Impact Form
9. Letter from SANDAG, dated May 24,200O
10. SDP 90-05(D) Site Plan
11. Reduced Exhibits “A” - “J,” dated June7,2000
BK:cs:mh
parlsbad - Oscar's
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant’s statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applicarions which ivill
discretiona? action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board. Commission or Committee.
The followinp information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannor
be reviewed unril this information is completed. Please print.
Note:
Person is defined as “Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club. fraternal
organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county. tit!-
municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other goup or combination acting as a unit.”
Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be
provided below.
1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant’s agent)
Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of & persons having a financial
interest in the application. If the applicant includes a coruoration or uartnership, include the
names. title. addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO
INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES. PLEASE INDICATE NON-
APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a pubiiclv-owned corDoration. include the
names. titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if
necessap.)
Person Oscar's - see attachment Carp/pan
Title Title
Address Address
? -. OWNER (Not the owner’s agent)
Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of && persons having any ownership
interest in the property involved. Also, provide the ‘nature of the legal ownership (i.e,
partnership. tenants in common. non-profit. corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a
corooration or DartnershiD. include the names. title. addresses of all individuals owning more
than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDlVlDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES,
PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a pobliclv-
owned coruoration. include the names. titles. and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate
page may be attached if necessary.)
Person Robert Me GaXkS Corp/Pafl PriceSmart, Inc.
Title Exec. V.P.-Gen. Counsel Title
Address 4649 Morena Blvd. Address
San Diego, CA 92117
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576 * (760) 438-1161 - FAX. (760) 438-0894 4b
IU 64 ,aaa i*.U,H’I rm”pl rLHlW”*,YU 313lCl~l 1aw J313/W Y. L
-
, - , >. NON-PROFIT t~<iANIZATION OR TRUST
I If any person identified pursuant to (I) or (2) above is P n onDrofi[ ornaniwtion or a truq. list the
1 names and addresses of NY person serving aS WI officer or director of the non-profit
orgiinization or as mutee or beneficiary of the.
Non Prof~t/Trust Non ProfWTrust
litlc Title
AddTeSS Address
4. Have YOU had more than f250 worth of bus&t transacted with any member of C@ smff.
Boards. Commissions. Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months?
cl Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s):
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if ncccssaiy.
I certify thajfl tl& above,information is mx and comet to the best of my knotikdgc.
\
/ ._
,/ ;- ---..
u-. P.-Y-
:,.
._ // )...Li 7.’
Signature of owner/date
PriceSmart, Inc.
Print or type name of owner
f @>ccj c. IL i;, \ u \ cm
Print, or kypc name of applicant
Signature of owner/applicant’s agent if applicabI&iatc
Print or type name of owntr/appiicant’s agent
H:A0MIMCOUNTEfWISCLOSURE STATEMENT l/98 52 Page 2 of 2
Attachment - Disclosure Statement
_ _-- ._-.
9c,‘L3 Y4..!w,Htwl’. 3LiL 5 1-t j
5fi.v Cvi:: CA 02 I 7 ’
S&Ccampany,Inc
DEBA-OsafsR-
9823 Pacdc Herghts Blvd . Suite J San Dtego. Ca 92121
Fed Tax IDat 334540553
October 25. 1999
Oscar Sarkisian Chairman
1484 La Plaza Dr.
Lake San Marcos Ca. 92069
17.5 %
Martha P Sarklstan
Secretary 1484 La Plaza Dr
Lake San Marcos, Ca 92069 17 5%
John Sarkalan
Chief Executwe Officer
P.0. Box 970
Cardrtt by the Sea. Ca 92196
16%
Bernadette Sarkisian
P 0. Box 970
Cardiff by the Sea, Ca 92196
16%
Tamara Sarkwan-Celmo
President
8405 me court
San Dlego. Ca 92129 27%,
v,-j - 0 U k * r i! :, , 1 c L, - '.4 .-i '.V 6 P E L\ r; ', 1 . ,: r. 1. 0 h+
d-3
SECCRl-l-lES OH’NERSHIP OF CERTAB BEKEFICUL OWNERS A..D >L.LYAGEMEST
The follo\\ing table s:ts fond certain information regarding the beneficial ownership of the Common
Stcck 3s of So\.ember 16. 1998 by (i) each of the Company’s directors, (ii) each of the Company’s Named
Exe:uti~e Ofliczrs (as defined herein). (iii) each person who is known by the Company to o\\n beneficially more
tl-i;n 59,’ o of the Common Stock and (iv) all directors and executive officers as a group
Vame and .Addrasf 11
Yumbcr ofSham Pcrccnta:c of
of Common Stock Common Stock
BcntflciaUv Dmed(2) Beneficiallv Owned
Robert E. Pric:(3)
Gilben X. Pa.rtida(i)
Rafael E. Barcenas
Katherine L. Henslev(5)
Leon C. Janks(6)
Lawrence B. Krause(7)
Robert M. Gans(8)
Karen J. Ratcliff(9)
Theodore A. WaIlace( 10)
Performance Capital, L.P.( 11) 767 Third Avenue, 16th Floor
New York NY 10017
WJnnefield Partners Small Cap Value, L.P.( 12) One Penn Plaza, Suite 4720
New York, NY 10119
Sol Price( 13) 7979 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 520
La Jolla, CA 92037
All executive officers and
directors as a group (10 persons)( 14)
1,3 12,423 24.7%
34,550 l
2.716 *
6>253 *
6,087 *
3,666 *
37,569 *
18,750 *
43,580 *
326,500 6.1%
320.900
1,780,249
1,457,639
6.0%
33.5%
27.4%
I Less than 1%.
(1) Esc:pt as indicated, the address of each person named in the table is c/o Pric:Smart. Inc., 4649 hlorena
Blvd., San Diego, California 92117.
(2) Beneficial ownership of directors, officers and 5% or more stockholders includes both outstanding Common
Stock and shares issuable upon exercise of options that are currently exercisable or will become exercisable
within 60 days after the date of this table. Escept as indicated in the footnotes to this table and pursuant to
applicable community property laws, the persons named in the table have sole voting and investment power
with respect to all shares of Common Stock beneficially owned by them.
(;:J Includes 1,278 shares held by Mr. Price as custodian for his minor children (UGMA-CA), 320,434 shares
held by the Roben and Allison Price Trust, of which Mr. Price is a tnistee, 312,500 shares held by the
Robert & Allison Price Charitable Trust, of which Mr. Price is a trustee, 22,566 shares held by a m for the
benefit of Mr. Price’s minor children, of which Mr. Price is a trustee, and 655,645 shares held by the Price
Family Charitable Fund, of which Mr. Price is a director. Mr. Price disclaims beneficial ownership of the
shares held by the Price Family Charitable Fund.
(4’ Includes 20.750 shares subject to options that are currently exercisable or will become exercisable within 60
days after the date of this table. Also includes 325 shares held in a tenants in common account with tu’o
other individuals. Each of the individuals has dispositive power with respect to the shares in the account.
(5) Includes 3,371 shams subject to options that are currently exercisable or will become exercisable within 60
days tier the &te of this rable.
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14
Includes 3,371 shares subject to options that are currently exercisable or w-ill become exercisable within 60
days after the date of this table.
Includes 2.716 shares held by the Krause Family Limited Partnership. of which rClr. Krause is a general
panner. Also includes 750 shares subject to options that are currently exercisable or will become
esercisable within 60 days after the date of this table.
Includes 8.750 held for Mr. Gans’ account in a profit sharing and 401(k) plan maintained by his former
employer. .Uso includes 28.819 shams subject to options that’are currently excr,isable or will become
:sercisable -dhin 50 day afterthe date oft&table.
Includes 10,000 shares subject to options that are currently exercisable or will become exercisable within 60
days after the date of this table.
Includes 35,758 shares subject to options that are currently exercisable or will become exercisable within 60
days after the date of this table.
Includes 7,500 shares held by Performance Capital II, L.P. and 6,200 shares held by Performance GfTshore,
Ltd.
Includes 120,359 shares held by Wynnefield Partners Small Cap Value, L.P. - I and 63,520 shares held by
Wynnefield Small Cap Value Offshore Fund, Ltd.
Includes 168,102 shares held by the Sol & Helen Price Trust, of which Mr. Price is trusta, 911,190 shares
held by the Price Family Charitable Trust, of which Mr. Price is trustee, 655,645 shares held by the Price
Family Charitable Fund, of which Mr. Price is a director, 8,737 shares held by the Marion BrodieTraq of
which Mr. Price is a trustee, and 36,575 shares held by the Dorothy Goldberg Trust, of which Mr. Rice is a
tnma. Mr. Price disclaims beneficial ownership of the shares held by the Price Family Charitable Fund,
the &far-ion Brodie Trust and the Dorothy Goldberg Trust.
Sa notes (A)-(9). Also includes 26,875 shares beneficially owned by Thomas D. Martin (including 11,857
shares subject to options that are currently exercisable or will become exercisable within 60 days after the
date of this table) and 8,750 shares beneficially owned by Kurt A May.
PROPOSAL 1
ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
The Board of Directors of the Company has nominated and recommends for election as directors the
following six persons to serve until the next Annual Meeting of Stockholders and until their reqective successors
shall have been duly elected and shall qualify. All of the nominas are presently directors of the Companv, and
following the Annual Meeting there will be no vacancies on the Board. The enclosed Pro?cy will be voted in favor
of the persons nominated unless othenvise indicated. If any of the nominees should be unable to serVe or should
decline to do so. the discretionary authority provided in the Proxy will be exercised by the present Board of
Directors to vote for a substitute or substitutes to be designated by the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors
does not believe at this time that any substitute nominee or nominees will be required. In the event that a nornina
for director is proposed at the Annual Mating, the enclosed proxy may be voted in favor of or against such
nominee or any other nominee proposed by the Board of Directors.
hlINJTES OF MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF PRICEShURT. INC.
A duly noticed meeting of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of PriceSmart,
Inc. (the “Corporation”) was held on January 1 2, 1999 at the San Diego Hiiton Beach and
Tennis Resort, 1775 E. Mission Bay Drive, San Diego, California.
The following directors participated throughout said meeting: Katherine Hensley,
Leon Jar&s, Lawrence Krause, Gilbert Partida and Robert Price. Also’present throughout
the meeting were Kurt May, Robert Gans, Karen Ratcliff and Tom Martin. Additionally
present during portions of the meeting were Jack McGrory, Ron deHane and Ed Oats.
Robert Price, Chairman of the Board, chaired the meeting; Robert Gans acted as Secretary
of the meeting.
RESOLVED FURTHER, that management is directed to hereinafter invest cash
held by PriceSmart, Inc. and its subsidiaries in a manner which complies with such
Investment Policy.
ADDOintrIMIt Of OfflCerS
RESOLVED, that the persons identified in Exhibit “D” hereto be, and they hereby
are, nominated and elected to the ofices following their names, to hold oflice at the
pleasure of this Board.
ADDrOVd of November 10 Board Minutes
RESOLVED, that the Minutes of this Board’s meeting of November 10, 1998 are
approved.
RESOLVED FURTHER that each of the officers of this Corporation be, and
hereby is, authorized and directed, on behalf of and in the name of the Corporation, to
take such actions, and to execute, acknowledge and deliver such agreements, documents,
applications or other instruments, as such officer may deem necessary or appropriate to
carry out the intent of the foregoing resolutions or for the Corporation to perform its
obligations under such agreements, such determination to be conclusively evidenced by the
taking of such actions and the execution and delivery of such instruments.
RESOLVED FURTHER, that the authority and power given hereunder shall be
deemed retroactive and, all acts authorized hereunder performed prior to the date hereof
hereby are, in all respects, ratified, confirmed and approved.
There being no further business before the meeting, the same
Dated: January 12, 1999
,,,
I
Robert M. Gans
Acting Secretary
- Robert E. Price
Chairman of the Board
4
-_
OFFTCERS OF PRICESMART, INC.
c
Gilbert A. Partida
Kurt A. May
Robert M. Gans
Karen J. Ratcliff
Thomas D. Martin
Kevin C. Breen
Ron 0. deHarte
Thomas L. Hammer
William J. Naylon
Mary D. Chapin
Glen C. Dobi
Brud E. Drachman
Walt H. Green
Ernest0 J. Grijalva
Laura E. Hensley
John D. Hildebrandt
Edward A. Oats
Tuyet T. Vu
Chief Executive Officer & President
Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
Executive Vice President, Secretary & General Counsel
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Executive Vice President
Senior Vice President
Senior Vice President - Marketing
Senior Vice President
Senior Vice President - Latin America North Operations
Vice President
Vice President
Vice President
Vice President
Vice President - Latin America Legal mairs
Vice President - International Controller
Vice President - Latin America South Operations
Vice President
Vice President - Domestic Controller
Officerlist 1
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: SDP 90-05(F)/CUP 99-28/CDP 99-55
CASE NAME: Oscar’s Carlsbad
APPLICANT: S & C Comnanv. Inc.
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Develonment of a 5.250 square foot restaurant with a 1.800
sauare foot outdoor dining natio on a me-graded in-fill lot located within the Costco center on the
southwest comer of the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and Armada Drive.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Man No. 17542. in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County. June
27, 1995.
APN: 2 1 l-040-34 Acres: 1.75 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: N/A
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: R (Regional Commercial)
Density Allowed: N/A Density Proposed: N/A
Existing Zone: C-2-O - General Commercial -0 Overlav Zone Proposed Zone: m
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning
Requirements)
Zoning General Plan Current Land Use
Site C-2-Q R Vacant
North OS OS Flower Fields
South C-2-Q R Costco Gas Station
East L-C PI Vacant
West C-2-Q R Costco Warehouse
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 34
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
[x1 Negative Declaration, issued Amil24,2000
0 Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
l-l Other,
-. -_
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: Oscar’s Carlsbad - SDP 90-05(F)/CUP 99-28/CDP 99-55
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 3 GENERAL PLAN: R
ZONING: C-2-Q
DEVELOPER’S NAME: S & C Company, Inc.
ADDRESS: 9823 Pacific Heights. Suite J San Dieno, CA 92121
PHONE NO.: 619-552-4920 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 2 1 l-040-34
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 1.75 acres
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE:N/A
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
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 ADT =
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. =
Open Space: Acreage Provided =
Schools:
Sewer: Demands in EDU
Identify Sub Basin =
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
Water: Demand in GPD =
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
34 EDU
$ .40/sa. ft
PLDA Area C
1,195 ADT
Station 4
Not Applicable
CUSD
34 EDU
Not Applicable
7,501 GPD
May 24,200O
Ms. Barbara Kennedy
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314
San Diego
ASSOCIATION OF
GOVERNMENTS
401 B Street, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101-4231
(619) 5955300 - Fax (619) 5955305
www.sandag.cog.ca.us
SU-BJ’ECT: Oscar’s Carisbad
DearMs. Kennedy:
SANDAG staff has reviewed the proposal to develop a restaurant at the southwestern comer of
Palomar Airport Road and Armada Drive. The project‘s site is located between the 60 and 65
community noise equivalent level contour.
The SANDAG Board of Directors, serving as the region’s Airport Land Use Commission, has not
reviewed the following staff comment. According to SANDAG’s rules and regulations as the
region’s Airport Land Use Commission, SANDAG staff has the authority to make a compatibility
determination if the proposal is clearly consistent with an airport’s Comprehensive Land Use
Plan.
The proposed restaurant is compatible with the McClellan-Palomar Airport
Comprehensive Land Use Plan because a restaurant is a compatible land use
between the 60 and 65 noise contours.
According to SANDAG’s Airport Land Use Commission rules and regulations, the airport
operator or local land use agency may request a determination from the SANDAG Board serving
as the Airport Land Use Commission. If you have any questions, please call me at (619) 595-5372.
Thank you for allowing SAXmAG to participate in the City’s review process
Sincerely,
JkK KOERPER
Special Projects Director
JWjm
cc: Floyd Best, Airport Manager
2198 Palomar Airport Rd. 9
Carlsbad, CA 92008
MEMBER AGENCIES: Cities of Carlsbad. Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitas. Escondtdo, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove,
National City, Oceanside, Poway, San Diego, San Marco% Santee, Solana Beach, Vtsta. and County ot San Dtego.
ADVISORY/LIAISON MEMBERS: Califorma Department of Transportation, Metropolttan Transit Development Board, North San Diego County Trans.11 Development
U.S. Department of Delense, S.D. Unified Port Drstnct, S.D. County Water Authority, andTijuana/Baja Californ&Mexlco.
YIVd 150 - W ‘UY8S71\ J
8651X - ~OLLIQCR 3t.Ui
zw P ‘3SK% - iIoTa I
I
-
E:r I; -
? il- ? I I I
‘*. \ =\ “\ ‘1 \
\
‘\,
b
I , I I I
I I I
$ z
f i ! z i
P CE 1
i
<
f 0 II4
3 < u .
2 01
:
: 0
r% d) ‘d
$ 0 0 s 0
u
ii4
i i : Y 9 I I -A II i q $ I 1 nndz 1 $a. 1 I
I
_ --
3 APUV 9661 PO 375 3 i 90 w an1 IMP * i-1 par;1 owanm5r 0+6\~6\axso3\ :k
i I I
fl L, -G I d $1 - .: 1 I, t -I 4’. ’ : I- I - --k&--- - -
-----
A_ 1
vwt3m 3
ovokll~ uaVd
Mu(33avsm3 Lo
!;I J E [#~;;;~g’
,_.._.. _ _---. --.-.-I.----- --.-----m-s-.- ---- -
3.x odn\ri”\.l.r\Y,~Ra*\n
----_
is41 I /- II \ i
/illI! I i I
‘,$
I I
i ,.’ --s . J
g b
-
E
7
,_- ----- 00 ,___-___ - - - - - - - 00 _-__-_- ,_- ----- 00 _ _ - - - - -
I
II
r- ---
I
4 L ---
-G
i
u
I
H I
J 1
0
L
q
n .*
0
-
2
-l
:
!
4,
2
r’
.
2” *’
t
, ?
11
!
L J!. I P . t-x /’ t ‘\ 81 $I Y; % %%iI I ‘\ I’ ‘\ ,’ .-’ / - .-‘--==-:-~~~/‘~
b’ 81
1 sz lpv p ,_- .._.. -.----.--.-.--..-.---- I .
-0 0 QQeeQQQQeeee
a
c .
: l .
.
c .
:
. I
t
I J
2 -I ..------- - .-. -., I 1
2
I
B Ii
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ”
Item No. 1 0
Application complete date:
P.C. AGENDA OF: June 21,200O
. .
SUBJECT: SDP 90-05WYCUP 99-2WCDP 99-55 - OSCAR’S CARLSBAD - Request for a
recommendation of approval for a Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permit
and Coastal Development Permit; and approval of a Site Development Plan
Amendment, to allow finish grading and construction of a restaurant located on a
vacant pad within the Costco center on the southwest comer of the intersection of
Palomar Airport Road and Armada Drive in the C-2-Q zone, within the City’s
Coastal Zone, the Commercial/Visitor Serving Overlay Zone, and Local Facilities
Management Zone 5.
I. RECOMMENDATION
This item was scheduled for June 7,2000, but was continued to allow for proper noticing.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4780 (Neg. Dec.)
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4781 (SDP)
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4782 (CUP)
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4783 (CDP)
5. Staff Report dated June 7,200O with attachments
BK:mh
PLANNING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING:
-
June21,2000 DRAFT EXHit5 5
1. SDP 90-05tFMCUP 99-281CDP 99-55 - OSCAR’S CARLSBAD - Request for a
recommendation of approval for a Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permit and Coastal
Development Permit; and approval of a Site Development Plan amendment, to allow finish
grading and construction of a restaurant located on a vacant pad within the Costco center on
the southwest corner of the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and Armada Drive in the C-
2-Q zone, within the City’s Coastal Zone, the Commercial/Visitor Serving Overlay Zone, and
Local Facilities Management Zone 5.
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, stated that the item on the agenda was a request for a number
of actions to develop an Oscar’s restaurant on the Costco site. The Commission’s action on the Site
Development Plan Amendment is final, but suspended until action is taken on the Commission’s
recommendation to the City Council on the Coastal Development Permit and the Conditional Use Permit,
as well as the Environmental Review.
Project Planner, Barbara Kennedy with the assistance of Skip Hammann, Senior Civil Engineer, presented
the staff report as follows: The applicant is requesting approval of a Site Development Plan Amendment,
Conditional Use Permit, and Coastal Development Permit to allow the construction of an Oscar’s
Restaurant on a vacant lot located within the Costco Center. The site is located on the southwest corner
of the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and Armada Drive. This site is relatively flat except for
transition slopes along the north, south and east edges. The lot contains 70 existing parking spaces
located west of the vacant pad area. There is approximately a lo-foot grade difference between Palomar
Airport Road and the pad.
This site is zoned C-2-Q with a General Plan Designation of Regional Commercial. The site is located in
the new Commercial/Visitor Serving Overlay Zone and the Mello II Segment of the Coastal Overlay Zone.
The original SDP approval for Costco required a Site Development Plan Amendment for any future use on
this pad. It was originally anticipated that this site would be developed with a retail use, but the SDP did
not restrict the use to retail only.
The project consists of a 5,250 square foot restaurant with an 1,800 square foot outdoor dining area.
Nineteen new parking spaces will be installed along the north edge of the site. The primary access to the
restaurant is enhanced with decorative paving per the Overlay Zone standards. A drop-off area has also
been incorporated into the design of the front entrance. The trash and loading area, which is located on
the north edge of the site, will be screened from view by a solid roof element as well as by the existing
slope and landscaping. The site has also been designed to provide a 50-foot landscape buffer south of
the outdoor eating area to screen views towards the gas station.
Referring to the overhead slide presentation, Ms. Kennedy stated that the cross sections indicate how the
screen wall ties into the parapets and tower elements to adequately screen the roof equipment. It was
also important to ensure that the roof equipment was adequately screened because of the views into the
site from the surrounding streets and residential areas. The building has been designed to comply with
the Contemporary Southwestern architectural style identified in the Overlay Zone. The building features a
two-toned stucco exterior with a mission tile roof. The building’s accent towers have an overall height of
35-feet, which complies with the height limit of the C-2 zone. A variety of details have been added to
create a high quality building. These elements include: arched recesses, pre-cast cornices, multi-paned
windows, tile accents, and exposed rafters. Because the site is in such a visible location, it was very
important to design the building with equal architectural emphasis on all four sides. All of the building
elevations have a high quality of architectural design and detailing.
Ms. Kennedy informed the Commission that parking and traffic were two primary issues of the project.
The property is subject to a reciprocal parking and access agreement with Costco. Since a higher parking
demand is created by the restaurant use, the parking requirements for all uses on the site need to be
evaluated.
73
-
PLANNING COMMISSION June 21,200O Page 3
This table shows the parking analysis for two scenarios, Costco with the Oscar’s restaurant, and Costco
with a 5,000 square foot retail use. There are over 215 extra spaces provided with the restaurant use.
Because there are over 35% more parking spaces provided than required it can be determined that
adequate parking is provided for all of the uses on site.
Ms. Kennedy stated that the original traffic study for the Price Club project analyzed this site as a retail
use and anticipated that the use would generate 200 ADT. Since the proposed restaurant use will
generate more traffic than a retail use, a new Traffic Impact Analysis was submitted. The Traffic Analysis
indicates that the restaurant would generate about 1,195 ADT and would add a minimal amount of traffic
during the PM peak hour. The study indicates that the increase in ADT would not decrease the level of
service of the affected roadways and key intersections to unacceptable levels.
The project has been analyzed for consistency with applicable polices and regulations, The proposed
restaurant is consistent with the Regional Commercial General Plan land use designation. The project
has been designed to comply with the C-2 zone and the Commercial/Visitor Serving Overlay Zone
development standards, which include parking, signs, building height, setbacks, architecture, lighting and
landscaping.
The SDP amendment for the restaurant was found to be consistent with the intent, findings, and conditions
of the original SDP and the project is subject to the previous conditions of approval for SDP 90-05. The
project requires a Conditional Use Permit due to its location in the CommercialNisitor Serving Overlay
Zone. The findings which ensure compatibility of the use to the site and neighborhood, and which ensure
adequacy of the roadway can be made.
The project is subject to the Scenic Corridor Guidelines, which require a high quality architectural design,
mechanical equipment screening, and a 50-foot landscape buffer from Palomar Airport Road, and these
features have been incorporated into the project design.
The project is consistent with the McClellan Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use plan and the
project has been conditioned to record the required Avigation easement.
The site is located in the Mello II Segment of the Coastal Overlay Zone and as proposed, is consistent
with the development and resource preservation policies. The Mello II Land Use Policies prohibiting
winter grading have been included as conditions of approval for the project.
The project is subject to the Growth Management requirements of Zone 5, with regard to the 11 public
facilities performance standards and is in compliance with the applicable standards.
The initial environmental study prepared for the project found that no significant environmental impacts
would occur as a result of the project. Based on these findings, the Planning Director issued a Negative
Declaration on April 24, 2000.
In conclusion, Ms. Kennedy stated that because the project meets all of the findings for approval, staff
recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution approving SDP 90-05-(F) and
recommending approval to the City Council for the Negative Declaration, CUP 99-28 and CDP 99-55
including an errata sheet dated June 7, 2000 which eliminates Engineering Conditions #32 and #34 of
Resolution #4781.
DISCUSSION:
Chairperson Compas asked why the aforementioned Engineering Conditions were eliminated.
PLANNING COMMISSION June 21,200O Page 4
Skip Hammann, Senior Civil Engineer, responded that after further review of the staff report the Engineering Department felt that although the speed bumps did not meet engineering standards, there
existed a potential conflict and it was decided that they would not require the applicant to remove the speed bumps. Regarding the hours of operation, condition #34, the original intent was to do whatever was possible to help reduce traffic congestion on Palomar Airport Road. After further analysis and discussion
with the applicant, staff determined that the restriction regarding hours of operation was not appropriate at this time.
Commissioner Segall, referring to the three-dimensional drawing of the project, stated it was difficult to see the signage. He wanted to know if the signage was at the maximum size allowed by the signage
ordinance that is now in place.
Ms. Kennedy advised the Commission that the project is allowed to have l-square footage of signage per lineal foot of building frontage. The project has a 25square foot sign on either side of the building.
Commissioner Segall wanted to know if the calculation included the entire sign, not just the text.
Ms. Kennedy responded yes.
Commissioner Segall asked if the traffic study included holiday parking issues.
It was considered, replied Ms. Kennedy, but because of the short duration of the holidays, and the fact
that the project meets the parking requirements, e.g. available parking is 35% over the requirement, it was determined that there was no reason to deny having the restaurant on the site.
Commissioner Segall wanted clarification regarding the intersection at Palomar Airport Road. He expressed concern regarding the eastbound traffic on Palomar Airport Road turning left onto Armada.
Referring to the overhead slide, he indicated that the drawing was not accurate, i.e. the actual site is 2 car lengths shorter than the drawing, with a double yellow line. He has observed cars going eastbound to
northbound making u-turns illegally across the double yellow lines, and believes this project with its
increased ADT creates a potential collision area with traffic that is going southbound on Armada, turning
westbound onto Palomar Airport Road.
Mr. Hammann stated that via discussion with Traffic Engineering, it was determined that when the median
was originally built, the nose was held back to allow semi-trucks to be able to make u-turns at this segment of the road. Staff is not recommending that the project be conditioned to make changes.
Although there is a conflict with southbound traffic on Armada making a right turn on red when vehicles
make a u-turn, he noted that it was the responsibility of the driver who is making the right on red to yield.
Although Commissioner Segall was not requesting that this project be conditioned to fix the intersection,
he wanted it noted that it was a very badly designed intersection.
Chairperson Compas asked if there have been any unusual accidents at this intersection.
Mr. Hammann responded that he was not aware of any, but would ask the Traffic Engineers to conduct a
research study to determine what types of accidents have occurred at this intersection.
Commissioner L’Heureux wanted to know if the monument sign would be redesigned to include Oscar’s.
Ms. Kennedy responded no, staff did not support multiple signs on the monument. The CUP would have
to be amended.
Commissioner Nielsen asked if the food court was calculated in the parking study.
Ms. Kennedy replied yes.
Chairperson Compas asked the applicant if he wanted to proceed with only six Commissioners present.
The applicant stated that he wanted to proceed.
PLANNING COMMISSION June 21,200O Page 5
Rudy Medina, Director of Real Estate - Oscar’s, 12873 Caminito Diego, San Diego 92130, stated he has reviewed the staff report and agrees with their position. He noted that the end result of the site design for
the project was a design that was both architecturally pleasing and dissimilar to most restaurant projects
that typify the landscape. After introducing the development team and the CEO of Oscar’s, he advised the Commission that they would be pleased to answer any questions or address any concerns regarding the
project.
Commissioner Heineman raised questions regarding the screening of the southern end of the restaurant,
the outdoor portion, from the gasoline station, He asked the applicant if he felt confident that the
screening would be done in a manner that would be comfortable for patrons to eat outside.
Referring to a rendering of the proposed restaurant, which he distributed to the Commissioners, Mr.
Medina stated that the patio area would have structural columns supported by a masonry wall, with panes of glass in-between the columns and a tile roof, which would more than adequately screen out road and other outside noise and allow patrons to enjoy the outside dining area.
Commissioner Nielsen asked if the patio was fully covered.
Mr. Medina stated that the patio would be fully covered. Although, most of the Oscar stores have canvas
covers, because of the requirement in the Overlay Zone, this project will have an actual structural roof with
tile roof over the patio.
Commissioner Trigas requested clarification regarding the circulation of traffic entering and exiting the site
and the confusion that may be caused if the egress and ingress are not clearly defined.
Mr. Medina responded that the permanent pylon would clearly define the egress and ingress to Oscar’s as well as to the Price Club,
Commissioner L’Heureux asked if the outside patio area would be a smoke free zone.
Mr. Medina stated that company policy dictated that all Oscar restaurants are smoke free.
Chairperson Compas asked how many restaurants did Oscar’s currently have.
Mr. Medina stated that the ninth restaurant, located at Miramar Boulevard and Interstate 15 in the New
Cousins Power Center, was currently under construction.
Chairperson Compas asked if any of the other Oscar’s were designed like this project and if this project
was the largest of the restaurants.
Mr. Medina responded there were no other Oscar restaurants designed like this project. Although it is not
the largest restaurant, it is the most architecturally expensive restaurant.
Chairperson Compas asked if the project is approved, when would the restaurant open.
Mr. Medina replied Spring 2001.
Referring to an article in the North County Times, Commissioner Segall wanted to know the total cost of
the project.
Mr. Medina stated that the cost to build the store would be in excess of one million dollars, and noted that because the store is in Carlsbad it did add extra cost features, but not an additional $500,000 as the article indicated.
Chairperson Compas asked if the applicant needed to get or already had Sizzler’s approval for this project.
Mr. Medina responded no.
Commissioner Segall asked the applicant if he was ok with the signage. 77
-
PLANNING COMMISSION June 21,200O Page 6
Mr. Medina replied that he would like to have more signage, and the initial site design did incorporate monument signage along with the Costco sign, but because of the restrictions in the Overlay Zone,
understood this was not allowed. If the opportunity arose, he would like to have a viewable sign on Palomar Airport Road.
Commissioner Segall asked the applicant if he was in agreement with the changes on the Errata Sheet dated June 7,200O.
Mr. Medina stated that he was in agreement with the Errata Sheet.
Commissioner Nielsen asked if the patio was included in the parking calculations for the restaurant.
Ms. Kennedy responded yes and also in the traffic calculations.
Commissioner Nielsen stated that he did not think Carlsbad had a “No Smoking” restriction on open-air
patios.
Mr. Kennedy stated she was not aware of one.
Commissioner Nielsen stated that the project was a fine design and he had no trouble supporting it.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY:
Chairperson Compas opened public testimony. As no one wished to speak, he closed public testimony and called for a motion.
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Segall, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt, Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4780, 4781, and 4782
recommending approval of the Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permit
CUP 99-28, and Coastal Development Permit CDP 99-55; and Resolution No.
4783 approving Site Development Plan Amendment SDP 90-05(F), based on the
findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, including the Errata
Sheet dated June 7,200O.
VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
6-O-O Compaq Trigas, Segall, Nielsen, L’Heureux, Heineman None
None
Chairperson Compas closed the Public Hearing.
78
8 d> 52 “2 O 6i-
p i- .
i %?%w“*l’; ! .+‘;><&q. .?.?‘. ;’ I. _i._
WEST EL
- ..__ . I^,
SCHEME K SOL
OSCAR’S RESTAURANT CARLSBAD CENTEI
9623 PACIFIC HEIGHTS BLVD., SUITE J
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 TEL: (619) 5524220 FAX: (619) 4574950
EVATION
TH ELEVATI ON .’ .;’
t .: ‘I.,
SCI PROJECT
SCHUSS *CLARK w;$,c
AN ARCHITECTURAL CORPORATION I #99- I99.60 9474 Keamy Villa Road, Suite 2 15 > ____ San Dlego, Caltfornia 92126-4597
ARCHITECTURE * PLANNING (619)578-2950 FAX (619]578-6346 L
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
DESCRIPTION:
Request for approval for a Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permit and
Coastal Development Permit to allow finish grading and construction of a
restaurant.
LOCATION:
This project is within the City of Carlsbad’s Coastal Zone located on a vacant pad
within the Costco Center on the southwest corner of the intersection of Palomar
Airport Road and Armada Drive in the C-2-Q Zone, within the City’s Coastal
Zone, the CommercialAIisitor Serving Overlay Zone, and Local Facilities
Management Zone 5.
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER: 21 I-040-34
APPLICANT :
S & C Company
9823 Pacific Heights, Suite J
San Diego, CA 92121
A public hearing on the above proposed project will be held by the Carlsbad City
Council at the Dove Library, 1775 Dove Lane, Carlsbad, California, on July 25, 2000 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 July 21, 2000.
If you have any questions or would like to be notified of the decision, please contact
Barbara Kennedy at the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, Monday through
Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 530 p.m., Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at 1635 Faraday
Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008 (760) 602-4626.
APPEALS
If you challenge the Conditional Use Permit or Coastal Development Permit in court,
you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing describe in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of
Carlsbad prior to the public hearing.
1. Appeals 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:
0 This site is located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area.
IXI 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 3111 Camino Del Rio
North, Suite 200, San Diego, California 92108-1725.
CASE FILE: CUP 99-28/CDP 99-55
CASE NAME: OSCAR’S CARLSBAD
PUBLISH: JULY 15,200O
OSCAR’S CARLSBAD
CUP 99-28lCDP 99-55
-
(Form A)
TO: CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice
CUP 99-28/CDP 99-55 - 0SCAR"S CARLSBAD
for a public hearing before the City Council.
Please notice the item for the council meeting of First Available Hearing
.
Thank you.
Assistant City Man
July 6, 2000
Date
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for SltC~:
City Clerk 1 .Ibl
CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DIST ENCINITAS SCHOOL DIST
801 PINE AVE 1 CIVIC CENTER DR 101 RANCH0 SANTA FE RD CARLSBAD CA 92008 SAN MARCOS CA 92069 ENCINITAS CA 92024
SAN DIEGUITO SCHOOL DIST LEUCADIA CNTY WATER DIST OLIVENHAIN WATER DIST
701 ENCINITAS BLVD 1960 LA COSTA AVE 1966 OLIVENHAIN RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024 CARLSBAD CA 92009 ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF ENCINITAS CITY OF SAN MARCOS CITY OF OCEANSIDE
505 S WLCAN AVE 1 CIVIC CENTER DR 300 NORTH COAST HWY ENCINITAS CA 92024 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 OCEANSIDE CA 92054
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988 VISTA CA 92085
VALLECITOS WATER DIST
788 SAN MARCOS BLVD
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
I.P.U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME REGIONAL WATER QUALITY SD COUNTY PLANNING
STE 50 STE B STE B
330 GOLDENSHORE 9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD 5201 RUFFIN RD
LONG BEACH CA 90802 SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331 SAN DIEGO CA 92123
I.AFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
SANDAG
STE 800
401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE
2730 LOKER AVE WEST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY
SERVICES
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
BARBARA KENNEDY
7/5/2000
Address Labels
CA COASTAL COMMISSION LEGOLAND CA INC
STE 103 FINANCE DEPT
7575 METROPOLITAN DR 1 LEG0 DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402 CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING
DEPT
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
Laser 5160@
.'i'&~fL Pi & KATHLEEN M T0RRF.S 1017 GOLDZNZYE VFi
CARLSSAD CA 92009
JfP!ES M JR c G.cRRIEL REZDES - 1013 GOLDE!J XY% Vki
CARLS3A3 CA 52004
ROBERT & SHEEN MARY HOTTO
1105 GOLDENZYE VP; CARISBh3 c-4 92009
KENNZTH L & CAROL A 1001 GOLDENEYE VX
CARLSSA~ CA 92009
H EIGLATCr;: _Vd. TR5ST 10/27/97
1004 GOLDZKYE VFS
CA?'S3?C CA 9200Q \- . 2
JOHXS FMLY TRUST 12/12/88 SC:iIEk;E FPiL'r' TRUST l/30/92 995 TURNSTOXZ RD CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOSZ?E G CORZY TRUST 10/19/78 995 TCTRLiSTON- ?D d I CARiSEG.3 CA 92005
SL’TT -3 5 & GxaaCs go VUN3fR>;f3: - /*_-__
95: T23iS3OSE RD
CAx+S3.43 CA 92009
. .
DUANE & JENIFER OCONWELL
987 TURNSTONE RD CARLSSAD CA 92009
MIKE MULLALLEY
983 TURNSTONE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OGG S’T’EPHZN S G TAP!AX: b!
975 TURNSTONE RD
CA?.c.S'-.Y D CA 92009
JAPIES & AGATHA A YOUNGBLOOD-
JILL YOUNGBLOOD-DOBBS
990 TURNSTOXE RD
CAEILS3AD CA 92009
JOSEPF, F? HOFiETH 986 TURNSTONE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CEO CEUNG Ct!UL & SUNG OK
994 TUXNSTONE RD CARLS33D CA 92009
JOFIN ? c SUSF.!y’ II iEO”i%
1002 TURXS'TONZ R3
CP3.LS"s:i.D CA 92009
JAFZT b! PZTEXSON
1002 TURXSTOXT RD
CARLSWD CA 92009
DUCLOS FAb!IiY TRUST
998 TiJF.NSTOldZ RD CARLSBAD CA 92009
u3c FOVS INC . .L C/O SSEA HOES
SUITE 200 10721 TRZEp&ZA s';
SAN DIEGO C-r, 92131
MULTI-?AMILY ASSOCIATES
c/o TC?s SUITE iO0 18 10 GkTEhF _ --V DR SAX EI.-.?'o CA 94 4 0 9
CB F-WCH ENTERBRISES
SLJIT3 106 560'0 Ay/GNIDA ENCIN.AS
YOICEI L NORIKE H.AXANO
1010 TURNSTON: RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
T%E PRICE CO
C/O EZCISE TAX DEFT 999 LAKE DR ISSAQUAY Fr.S 92027
PRICE PLART e. INZ
C/O EOE GAIC:S
4 649 NOXNA BLi'3
SAN CIEGO CA 92ii7 CARLSB.r.D C.S 92003
DAXIEL E & N.ANCY M
6-126 E:ERLIM DR
Cr.?LS3.=.D c.2. 92009
LEG0 LAND C.~LIFORNIA INC
C/O FIKAIICE CSPT SUITE 106
5600 AVENIDA ENCINSS #106 CARLS3A.D CA 92005
KELLY RWCH CO?.? CZN”ER I LLC
c/o TES AlLEK G?:Z--e?
S'JITZ ESC 4365 :xrC;JTI','Z c;.
S-4l: CiEGC CA 92121
SCHNEIDER
RIO c bI.=.RT: T S43ADICCI bd 1 6912 P!ZRLIS CR
C.4?A.S%-.C cr 92009
PATRICK & CTFy*‘ Klbl GC‘OMNZLL, - --.* 6420 MZRLIN DR
C.ARLS3.W CA 92009
%3Xm4?,1r! s L LiS-G x.:-TE;ix
64 16 !*:z:;ILIK 33
cx3is3.a CA 52303
RCSEX i E;E.TX:.;EZ~~ D H33.A.K 6408 P'EZIN DX
CA&.&3 CA 52009
sAR?v L S3v.S - - 640: b!ZRL,IN DR
CARLS3.~3 CP 92339 . .
I.IES.; C DO:;: OINS PJEI ZOU
6400 >z::RLIz !J,1
C.z?i S3.W CA 92009 ._ -
FR&?;K 3 E, L3i CONXA S EODDEN 6403 MZRLIN DR
C.vcLS3A3 CA. 92009
DAVID 3 & R3BECCA
6415 ERLIN DR
CARLSSAD CA 92009
A R4GLAND
JZCCRISY & MARY L YzAROUS
6427 MERLIN DR
CARLSSAD CA 92009
b:ILLI.~.y T FARLE?
6407 b!dRLIN DR
CARLS3AD CA 92009
PANDURANGAM & M3NAKA MUTHYALA
6119 MERLIN DR
CARLSB.AD CA 92009
HAROLD & JOAN GA!43IiL
6431 MSRLIN DR CARLSBAD CA 92009
--;,-..- PT r ‘P! L C~:BC.W.X A?- “LX2 AdAl
6411 MZRLIN DR
CARLS3A.D CA 9236 9
RONALD G & M%Y K
6423 MERLIN DR CARLS3.W CA 92009
SE.4
GRIFFIN F.nfiILY 'TRUST 4/17/9S
6435 MSRLIN DR
CARiSEjAD CA 92009
JOE JR & DUNS KELLIA MILLER ROBfRT 0 & LINDA SANDERS 1054 SN:PE, CT 1050 SNIPE CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARSBAD CA 92009
PRIGS MART INC
C/O 30B GAINS
4649 MORENA BLVD SAN DIEGO CA 92117
UDC HOMES INC THE PRICE CO
C/O SHEA HOMES C/O EZCISE TAX DEPT
10721 TREENA ST 999 LAKE DR
SUITE 200 ISSAQUAH WA 98027
SAN DIEGO CA 92131
KELLY RANCH CORD CENTER I LLC
C/O THE ALLEN GROUP
SUITE 850 4365 EXECUTIVE DR SAN DIEGO CA 92121
_. - FILE COPY City of Carlsbad
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
COMPLETE DATE: April 26,200O
DESCRIPTION:
Request for a F approval for a Negative Declaration, Conditional Use
Permit and Coastal Development Permit; C
M to allow finish grading and construction of a restaurant.
LOCATION:
This project is within the City of Carlsbad’s Coastal Zone located on a vacant pad within
the Costco center on the southwest comer of the intersection of Palomar Airport Road
and Armada Drive in the C-2-Q zone, within the City’s Coastal Zone, the
CommercialiVisitor Serving Overlay Zone, and Local Facilities Management Zone 5.
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER:
21 l-040-34
APPLICANT:
S & C Company.
9823 Pacific Heights, Ste. J
San Diego, CA 92121
A public hearing on the above proposed project will be held by the Planning Commission in the
Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, on June 7, 2000 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 June .
If you have any questions, or would like to be notified of the decision, please contact Barbara
Kennedy 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 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008,
(760) 602-4626.
. . .
. . .
. . .
1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 l (760) 602-4600 - FAX (760) 602-8559
‘aa ’ : *A .
I “:‘. 3 -.
APPEALS
If you challenge the Conditional Use Permit, Coastal Development Permit, e
w 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 kitten correspondence delivered to the
City of Carlsbad prior to the public hearing.
1. Anpeals 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:
cl This site is located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area.
lzl 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.
CASE FILE: m/CUP 99-28/CDP 99-55
CASE NAME: OSCAR’S CARLSBAD
PUBLISH: MAY 25,200O
-City 0 - FILE COPY
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
COMPLETE DATE: April 26,200O
DESCRIPTION:
Request for a recommendation of approval for a Negative Declaration, Conditional Use
Permit and Coastal Development Permit; and approval of a Site Development Plan Amendment, to allow finish grading and construction of a restaurant.
LOCATION:
This project is within the City of Carlsbad’s Coastal Zone located on a vacant pad within
the Costco center on the southwest comer of the intersection of Palomar Airport Road
and Armada Drive in the C-2-Q zone, within the City’s Coastal Zone, the
Commercial/Visitor Serving Overlay Zone, and Local Facilities Management Zone 5.
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER:
2 1 l-040-34
APPLICANT:
S & C Company,
9823 Pacific Heights, Ste. J
San Diego, CA 92121
A public hearing on the above proposed project will be held by the Planning Commission in the
Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, on June 7, 2000 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 June . .
If you have any questions, or would like to be notified of the decision, please contact Barbara
Kennedy 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 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008,
(760) 602-4626.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
1635 Faraday Avenue l Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 - (760) 602-4600 - FAX (760) 602-8559
?’ +
‘. , ii;=.
APPEALS
If you challenge the Conditional Use Permit, Coastal Development Permit, Site Development
Plan Amendment 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 kitten correspondence delivered to the
City of Carlsbad 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:
cl This site is located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area.
El 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 3111 Camino De1 Rio North, Suite 200, San Diego, California
92108-1725.
CASE FILE: SDP 90-05(F)/CUP 99-2WCDP 99-55
CASE NAME: OSCAR’S CARLSBAD
PUBLISH: MAY 25,200o
2y,7r: , _.A “,>U " & KA"HLEEN M TORRE= JZJES M ,'"n & G&.q.?.IE:L RXO?E,c - ;.z.:: : j Y~,;_=~~:: > 'f:::
1017 GOLDENEYE VW 1013 GOLc=N ::y: T;w . r -- - i i r -?- --..__, - . . . 2c--;..>:: . ;.
CARLSB.?.3 c.4 92009 CARLSBA3 CA 923G5 ?.-..- -.-.-_ i.-..x+ 2 ; .1- ,^, _ . - - ,- 1'-. _.
ROBERT & SHEEN MARY HOTTO KENNETH L & CAROL A p BiG~*z*=s~R r&q,,=: -;z- g-
1105 GOLDEiJEYE VW 1031 GOLD~~T-.T
C4RLSBAD CA-,;,?
;CO; GOLDEK::V: i');
CARLSBAD C.;. 92009 ,- 7. A 5 i.i?,,S3.4D CA 92$29
JOHNS FMLY TRUST 12/12/88 JOSEF'H G COREY TRUST 1%/19/79 p :h; 1 5 I 3 .F & ,zXL.ZE ;, I'y>;;=3R>:Tgr
sc:iIEwE FKV TRUST l/30/92 995 TURNSTONE RD 95: ~~xcs~os~ R3
999 TURNSTONE RD CARLSBhD CA 92009 cpg.T'"'-l c;* 92z:j -.,-.-A-
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DUANE & JENIFER OCONNELL MIKE MULLALLEY OGG STEPHEN S & TA!!AR4 b: 987 TURNSTONE RD 983 TURNSTONE RD 979 TURNSTONE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92oc9
JOSE?H W HO>;tTH
986 TURNSTONE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JAMES & AGATHA A YOUNGBLOOD-
JILL YOUNGBLOOD-DOBBS 990 TURNSTONE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CH0 CH-JNG CHUL & SUNG OK
994 TURNSTONE RD CARLSBAD CA 92009
DUCLOS FAx:LY TRUST 998 TURNSTONE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHN P & SUSAN M LEONE JANET ?I PETERSON 1002 TURNSTOM' RD 1002 T';-;RNSTONE RC
c.r:xsaP,:: CA 92035 CARLSBAD CA 92009
YOICHI & NORIKE HAMANO UDC HOMES INC MULTI-FAMILY ASSOCIATES
1010 TURNSTONE RD C/O SHEA HOMES C/O TCRS
CARLSBAD CA 92009 SUITE 200 SUITE 100 10721 TREZNA ST 1810 G.ATEWAY DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92131 SAN P!.;'"O CA 94409 .Y
THE PRICE CO
C/O EZCISE TAX DEPT
999 LAKE DR ISSAQUAH by.4 9%027
PRICE MART INC
C/O BOB GAINS
4649 MORESA BLVD SAN DIEGO CA 92il7
CB Pk4N'3!! ENTERPRISES SUITE 106
5600 A'v'ENID.4 ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA 92008
LEG0 LAND CALIFORNIA INC
C/O FINANCE DEPT
SUITE 106 5600 AVENI=.I. ~NCIN.4S giC6
CARLSB.::: C.;. 9200E
KELLY RANCH CORF CENTER I LLC DANIEL E G NANCY M SCHNEIDER
C/O THE F'L=N GRO-'P a- u -I- 6426 MERLIN DR
SUITE 850 CARLSB.LD CD 9200s . .
4365 EXEC','"It'E DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92121
PATRICK & TIE:?‘ KIM OCONNELL HO>Je4RD S L LIS.; Ki,?KIN 6420 MERLIN DR 6416 MERLIN DR
CARLSBAD C-4 92009 CARLSBAD CA 92009
ROBERT & :<ATHLEEN 3 EUD.>K HARRY L SEARS 6408 PZRLIK DR 6404 MFRLiN DR Y ^
CARIS%% C.1 22009 C.4RLSBP.D CA 92 C 3 4
RIO L :/ARIE T SABADICCI
6912 MERLIN DR
CARLSB.r.D CA 92009
AIHUA L DONG QING PiE; ZOU
6400 MERLIN CR
CARLSB.r.D CA 92009
5 :-s:y-.: 3 & LOI301'J\J.; S BO3ZF k;ILLi2J( 7 CAa,T r-7 ----,- _ ..-=- --.. --..-- _ * .'- . . . . - we- .-.d-;.. 2 --lr:--..z .-.- i LT.= 6403 YERLIK DR
CA3.LS3.AD CA 92009
D.2.:;: D 3 & p\Ea’r”’ --r.T p* p&:-G L-AA>: D
6G15 t%:RiIX 32 C.>?.LSSAD c.; 52009
JZF3EY c Pf4P.Y L YE.r.ROiiS
642: >!SRLIEi DR CA?LLS5.J.D c-4 92 00 3
6407 PT='i-TE: DR .L. i.. CARLSs.3 CA 92oc9
~APiDiJ~Aa?;~a2~,! & $!ix;.22ywAe ~!;‘TE’~>~J.A~
6C 19 biZ3LIN D?.
C~RLSBAC CA 92c19 -1
HAROLD & JO?& GAX3ILL
6431 F!E?.LI?; DEI
C.T.?LSBR2 c.=. 92005
JOS JR & DilC;N KZLLIA b!ILLER ROBERT 0 & LINDA SAXDERS 1054 SNIPE CT 1050 SNI?E CT CARLSBAD CA 92009 C?.RSBXD CA 92009
JOSEPH W HOWETH 986 TU?.INSTONS RD' CARLSBF.1 CA 92009
PRICE MAST i>iC i C/O BOB GAINS
4649 MORENA BLVD SAN DIEGO CA 92117
UDC HOMES INC
C/O SHEA HOMZS
6411 b::?.;.L->: -‘-
C.22LSS.~~ cc. 2: r
RONAL c & ?*L??,i’ >. G -.-. -’ CY‘
6423 ERLIX C3
Cx.LS3.1.7 CA 52223
G~TF’ir- T’C’TT” ‘i-2-J3: r/17/55 . --i -.. -.--.-da
6435 P!P?.LIK 03. CARLS3~3 CA 92009
THE PRICE CO C/O EZCISE TAX DS?T
10721 TREENA ST 999 LAKE DR
SLTITE 20C ISSAQUAS WA 98027
SAN DIEGO CA 92131
KELLY W.NCH CORP CENTER I LLC FEtriNK & LOI33hNA 3ODDEN
C/O THE ALLEN GROUP 6403 MZRLIN DR
SUITE 85C CARLSBAD CA 92009
4365 EXECUTIVE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92121