Loading...
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