HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-09-12; City Council; 15897; Costco Gas Station ExpansionA e
Q P
CITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL
AB# 15; 897 TITLE:
COSTCO GAS STATION/BUILDING EXPANSION
MTG. ?-/L-O0 SDP 90-05(E)ICUP 90-03(C)/CDP 97-05(A)
DEPT. PLN V+-
DEPT. HD. w
CITY ATTY. @’
CITY MGR
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That Council ADOPT Resolution No. ~0000 -289 APPROVING the Negative Declaration,
Site Development Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permjt Amendment, and Coastal Development
Permit Amendment for the Costco Gas Station/Building Expansion project.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On July 19, 2000, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended
approval, with a 7-O vote, of the Negative Declaration, Site Development Plan Amendment,
Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Coastal Development Permit Amendment for the Costco
Gas Station/Building Expansion project. The permits would allow expansions to the existing gas
station and warehouse building, as well as allowing the addition of 55 parking spaces in the existing
parking lot.
The gas station expansion would involve the addition of one pump island with two dispensers, one
accessible by physically-challenged individuals, and the extension of the existing canopy. The
warehouse expansion would total 19,371 square feet and would expand the receiving area, the retail
area and the food service area. These expansions would occur on the south, north and east sides of
the building, respectively. These expansions would necessitate the removal of 28 parking spaces.
To partially offset the increased parking demand and parking space removal, 55 additional parking
spaces would be added in the flat area along the northern edge of the existing parking lot. After all
improvements, the required amount of parking for the Costco uses would be 455 spaces whereas
the parking provided in the Costco lot would total 693 spaces.
The proposed project is subject to the City’s General Plan, Local Coastal Program, C-2-Q Zone,
Conditional Use Ordinance, Parking Ordinance, Commercial/Visitor-Serving Overlay Ordinance,
Growth Management Ordinance, and the Zone 5 Local Facilities Management Zone. Staff and the
Planning Commission found the project to be consistent with all of these regulations. No public
testimony was offered at the Planning Commission hearing of July 19, 2000. Therefore, staff and
the Planning Commission recommend approval of the project.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
Environmental analysis has been conducted on the Costco property on numerous previous
occasions: the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the original Price Club development; the Master
EIR for the 1994 General Plan Update; and. most recently, the Negative Declaration for the Price
Costco Gasoline Station. With regard to land use, population and housing, geology, biological
resources, cultural resources and recreation, these issue areas have been previously analyzed in
the earlier environmental analysis and no additional review or mitigation measures are necessary.
With regard to air quality, transportation and circulation, water and other utilities and services,
hazards, noise and aesthetics, the Planning Director determined that no significant environmental
impacts would result and issued a Negative Declaration on June 26, 2000. No comments were
received during the 20-day public review period.
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 1 si t$97
FISCAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impacts to the City are negligible since all development fees will be collected through the
building permit processing. All public facilities necessary to serve the development are already in
place.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resolution No. ACOO -d 87
2. Location Map
3. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4791, 4792, 4793, and 4794
4. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated July 19, 2000
5. Excerpts of Planning Commission minutes, dated July 19, 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. 2000-289
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT
SDP 90-05(E), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT CUP
90-03(C) AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
AMENDMENT CDP 97-05(A) TO ALLOW THE ADDITION OF A
GASOLINE PUMP ISLAND AT THE EXISTING COSTCO GAS
STATION, A 19,371 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION TO THE
EXISTING COSTCO WAREHOUSE INCLUDING TWO ROOF-
MOUNTED HVAC UNITS, AND THE ADDITION OF 55 PARKING
SPACES, ON PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF PALOMAR
AIRPORT ROAD, BETWEEN PASEO DEL NORTE AND
ARMADA DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE
5.
CASE NAME: COSTCO GAS STATION/BUILDING
EXPANSION
CASE NO.: SDP 90-05(E)/CUP 90-03(C)/CDP 97-05(A)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on July 19, 2000, hold a duly noticed
public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said application for a Site Development Plan
Amendment, Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Coastal Development Permit
Amendment; and
WHEREAS, on July 19, 2000, the Planning Commission did, after hearing and
considering all evidence and testimony of all people desiring to be heard adopted Resolutions
4791, 4792, 4793, and 4794, recommending approval of a Negative Declaration, Site
Development Plan Amendment (SDP 90-05(E)), Conditional Use Permit Amendment (CUP 90-
03(C)), and Coastal Development Permit Amendment (CDP 97-05(A)), to add an additional
gasoline pump island, expand the existing warehouse by 19,371 square feet and add 55 parking
spaces to the existing parking lot; and
WHEREAS, on the 12th day of September , 2000, the
City Council of the City of Carlsbad, held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to
consider said Negative Declaration, Site Development Plan Amendment, Conditional Use
Permit Amendment and Coastal Development Permit Amendment and at that time received
recommendations, objections, protests, comments from all persons interested in or opposed to
SDP 90-05(E)/CUP 90-03(C)/CDP 97-05(A); and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
follows:
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the Council approves City Council Resolution No. 2000-289 and
that the findings of the Planning Commission in Resolutions No. 4791, 4792, 4793, and 4794,
on file with the City Clerk, and incorporated herein by reference, constitute the findings of the
City Council in this matter.
3. That the application for a Site Development Plan Amendment (SDP 90-05(E)),
Conditional Use Permit Amendment (CUP 90-03(C)), and Coastal Development Permit
Amendment (CDP 97-05(A)) to allow the addition of a gasoline pump island, a 19,371 square
foot warehouse addition, and the addition of 55 parking spaces, on property located south of
Palomar Airport Road, between Armada Drive and Paseo del Norte in LFMP 5 is approved as
shown in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4791, 4792, 4793, and 4794 and incorporated
herein by reference.
4. 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.”
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 12th day of September 2000, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Hall, Finnila, Nygaard and Kulchin
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
CLAUDE A.mlrh@~yc# - ’
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
WOOD, City Clerk
-3-
EXHIBIT 2
COSTCO GAS STATION/ BUILDING ADDITION
SDP 90=05(E)/CUP 90=03(C)/
CDP 97=05(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
EXHIBIT 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4791
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW
THE ADDITION OF A PUMP ISLAND AT THE EXISTING
GAS STATION, A 19,371 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION TO
THE EXISTING WAREHOUSE, INCLUDING TWO NEW
ROOF-MOUNTED HVAC UNITS, AND THE ADDITION OF
55 PARKING SPACES, ON PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF
PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, BETWEEN ARMADA DRIVE
AND PASEO DEL NORTE IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 5
CASE NAME: COSTCO GAS STATION/BUILDING
EXPANSION
CASE NO.: SDP 90-OS(EKUP 90-03(C)/CDP 97-05(A)
WHEREAS, Design Development Group, “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Costco Wholesale, Inc.,
“Owner”, described as
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 17542, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder June 27, 1995, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 19th day of July, 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:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 7
1
2
3.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration
according to Exhibit “ND” dated June 26, 2000, and “PII” dated June 20, 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. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration and the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
b. 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
C. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
d. based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PC RESO NO. 4791 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of July 2000, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Baker, Heineman,
L’Heureux, Nielsen, Segall, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairpekon
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
Planning Dirktor
PC RESO NO. 4791 -3-
City of Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location:
Project Description:
Property generally located south of Palomar Airport Road, between
Armada Drive and Paseo de1 Norte, City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California
Request for a Site Development Plan Amendment, Conditional
Use Permit Amendment, and Coastal Development Permit
Amendment to allow the addition of a gasoline pump island at the
existing Costco gasoline station, a 19,371 square foot expansion to
the existing Costco warehouse, including two new roof-mounted
HVAC units, and the addition of 55 parking spaces, all within the
existing developed area of the Costco property.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Michael Grim in the Planning Department at
(760) 602-4623.
DATED: June 26,200O
CASE NO: SDP 90-05(A)/CUP 90-03(C)/CDP 97-05(A)
CASE NAME: COSTCO GAS STATION/BUILDING EXPANSION
PUBLISH DATE: June 26,200O
MICHAEL J. HO-MIXER
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue l ,Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 l (760) 602-4600 - FAX (760) 602-8559
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: SDP 90-05(El/CUP 90-03(Cl/CDP 97-05(A)
DATE: June 20.2000
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Costco Gas Station/Building Exuansion
2. APPLICANT: Design Develoument Group
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 7625 Hawenhurst Ave., Suite 12A. Van
Nuys. CA 91406 8 18-782-6484
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: March 3 1. 1999
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reauest for a Site Develonment Plan Amendment. Conditional Use
Permit Amendment, and Coastal Develonment Permit Amendment to allow the addition of a
gasoline pump island at the existing Costco gasoline station, a 19,371 square foot exnansion to
the existing Costco warehouse, including two new roof-mounted HVAC units, and the addition
of 55 parking snaces, all within the existing develoued area of the Costco urouertv.
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.
q Land Use and Planning lxl Transportation/Circulation q Public Services
q Population and Housing q Biological Resources q Utilities & Service Systems
q Geological Problems
q Water
q Energy & Mineral Resources q Aesthetics
cl Hazards q Cultural Resources
q Air Quality q Noise q Recreation
q Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
q
q
q
lxl
q
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative
Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore,
a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
Planner Signature Date
(~/Zz/OO
Date I
2 Rev. 03/28/96 /a
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.
l A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
“Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
“Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but a 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).
l . When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96 13
l If there axe 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 Declar?tion may be prepared.
0 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 tlic 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 E&Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
Rev. 03/28/96 14
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 #k(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-l - 5.6-18)
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)
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)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6) b) 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) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-l - 5.5-6)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
4
b)
c)
4
4
0
g)
h)
9
expose people to potential impacts &Olving: Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l :Pgs
5.1-l - 5.1.15)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l :Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15)
Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or till? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1-15) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15)
Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
Unique geologic or physical features? (#l :Pgs 5.1-l - 5.1-15)
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) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
c) 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)
Potentially
Significant
impact
q
q
q
q
q
q
0
q
q q q
q
q q
q q q
q
cl
q
Potentially Significant
Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
q
q
cl
q
q
q
q
q
q q q
q
q q
q q q
q
El
cl
Less Than S~gmfkanl
Impact
q
q
q
cl
El
q
0
q
q q q
q
q q
q q 0
q
III
q
NO
impact
E.3
lxl
El
lzl
lxl
lx
Ix]
Ix1
lxl
ISI
Ix1
lxl
Ix1
lxl
Ix1
Ix1
Ix1
lxl
El
Ix]
5 Rev. 03/28/96 /5
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d)
e)
r)
g)
h)
0
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
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)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-11)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-l - 5..2-
11) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.2-l - 5..2-11)
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)
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) d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-l - 5.3-12)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
4
b)
cl
4
4
0
El
proposal result in: Increased vehicle tips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
5.7-l - 5.7.22) 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)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-l - 5.7.22) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-l -
5.7.22)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (#l :Pgs 5.4- 1 - 5.4-24)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Potentially Significant Impact
q
-II
cl
q
q
q
El
q
cl
q
Ix1
cl
q
q
q
cl
q
0
q
q
Potentially
.Qnificant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated q
q
q
q . .
q
q
El
cl
0
q
q
0
q
q
q
q
q
q
q
0
Less Than
Slgnificanr
Impact
q
cl
q
cl
q
q
cl
cl
q
0
q
cl
0
q
0
q
q
El
q
q
h0
lmpsct
lxl
El
lxl
Ix]
lxl
lxl
cl
El
lxl
1x1
q
El
lxl
El
(XI
Ix1
lxl
IXI
la
Ix1
6 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
4
e)
VIII.
4
b)
c)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-l - 5.4-24)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l :Pgs 5.4- 1
- 5.4-24)
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) ’
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
1 - 5.13-9) 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)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals orradiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-I - 5.10.1-5)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#I :Pgs 5.10. I- 1 -
5.10.1-5) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-l - 5.10.1-5)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-l - 5.9-
15) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9- 1 - 5.9-15)
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)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-l - 5.12.6-4)
c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-l - 5.12.8-7)
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-I - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
7
Potentially
Significant
Impact
q
q
q
q
q
cl
q
q
q
q
q
q
III q q q q
q
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated q
q
q
q
q
0
q
q
q
q
q
q
Cl. q q q q
q
Less Than Significant
impact
q
q
q
q
q
0
q
q
0
El
cl
q
q q q q q
q
KO
Impact
El
Is]
lxl
lzl
Ix1
lzl
lxl
lxl
Ix]
I8
lxl
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
lxl
Ix1
l.xl
Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b)
cl
4
4
0
g)
XIII.
a)
b)
cl
XIV.
a>
b)
c)
4
4
Communications systems?
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.3-7)
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-l - 5.11-5)
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 l-l - 5.1 l-5)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-I - 5%
10) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-
10) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
5.8-l - 5.8-10) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-l - 5.8-10)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a)
b)
XVI.
a)
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-l -
5.12.8-7) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (# 1 :Pgs
5.12.8-l - 5.12.8-7)
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
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 impor@nt
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
q 0
q q q q
q
q
q
q
q
q q
q
q
q
q
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated q 0
q El q q
q
q
q
q
q
q 0
q
0
q
q
Less Than
Svgnificsnl
lmpacr
q q
q q q q
q
q
q
q
q
q q
q
q
q
0.
\O
Impact
El
El
lxl
lxl
Ix]
lxl
Ix]
Ix1
lxl
Ia
lxl
lxl
lxl
Ix]
lzl
(XI
Ix]
8 Rev. 03128196 /ti’
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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?
Potentially Potentlall> Less Than NO Significant Significant Significant impacr Impact Unless impact _
Mitigation
Incoroorated q q q lxl
q q q El
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis of the Costco site has been conducted on numerous occasions. The earliest
analysis was through the Master Environmental Impact Report for the 1994 General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-Ol), which reviewed the potential impacts associated with buildout of the City’s
General Plan, including transportation and air quality impacts. Next was the Conditional
Negative Declaration for the original Price Club store (SDP 90-05), which reviewed the potential
impacts of the development of the Price Club site (now known as Costco) with a 12 1,000 square
foot commercial retail and warehouse building and associated parking, landscaping and
improvements. The most recent environmental documentation for the site was the Negative
Declaration for the PriceCostco Gasoline State (SDP 90-OS(C)/CUP 90-03(A), which reviewed
the potential impacts of the construction and operation of a members-only, automated gasoline
station within the developed Costco parking lot.
Therefore, the project’s potential impacts on land use and planning, population and housing,
geology, air quality, transportation and circulation, biological resources, cultural resources and
recreation have been previously analyzed in the earlier environmental analysis. The following
discussion deals with the potential impacts to those areas not previously analyzed, including a
discussion on air quality and transportation/circulation.
Rev. 03128196 19
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The proposal involves a Site Development Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit
Amendment and Coastal Development Pen-nit Amendment to allow the addition of a gasoline
pump island at the existing Costco gasoline station, a 19,371 square foot expansion to the
existing Costco warehouse, including two new roof-mounted HVAC units, and the addition of 55
parking spaces, on property located south of Palomar Airport Road, between Armada Drive and
Paseo de1 Norte.
All proposed improvements fit within the existing developed portions of the Costco site and no
other revisions or expansions are proposed. The additional traffic generated by the project, as
analyzed by the City’s Engineering Department, will not impact to the-levels of service of the
surrounding roadways and key intersections to an unacceptable level. The site remains
overparked by 238 parking spaces, therefore no adverse impacts to parking will occur.
Following is a discussion of potential impacts not previously analyzed, as well as more detailed
discussions regarding air quality and transportation/circulation.
WATER/UTILITIES
The project will generate an additional need for water service and other utilities, due to the
increase in warehouse and gas station square footage. The Carlsbad Municipal Water District
staff has reviewed the proposal and found no issues with the proposed increase or 22,000 gallons
per day. In addition, the project is conditioned that building permits will not be issued unless the
District certifies that adequate water and sewer facilities are available to the project. With regard
to other facilities, the City Engineering Department found that all existing facilities serving the
Costco site are adequate to accommodate the proposed expansion. The project must also pay a
Public Facilities Fee to offset its impacts on these existing public facilities. Given the above, no
impacts to water or other utilities will occur.
HAZARDS
The proposed construction activities will be monitored and controlled through standard practices
of the Carlsbad Building, Fire and Engineering Departments, including but not limited to:
providing for safe and adequate pedestrian and vehicular circulation through the site during
construction, precluding the storage of hazardous materials on site without Fire Department
approval, and maintaining satisfactory tire control measures at all times. Therefore, the proposed
Costco expansion project will not cause any significant adverse impacts with regard to hazards.
NOISE
There will likely be a short-term increase in noise levels during construction, however the project must conform to the City’s regulations regarding construction noise as contained in Section
8.48.010 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Therefore the impacts are considered to be
insignificant in nature.
AESTHETICS
The proposed expansions to the warehouse building and gas station canopy will match the
existing structures in materials, colors, and architecture. The expansions will not significantly
increase the project’s visibility from Palomar Airport Road and the rotated and redesigned
10 Rev. 03/28/96 20
receiving area will greatly improve the views of the project from the south. No adverse impacts
due to aesthetics should occur.
AIR OUALITY:
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
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.
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 ascproposed 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
11 Rev. 03/28/96 21
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.
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, 92009,
(760) 602-4623.
1. Final Master Environmental Imnact Retort 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 - SDP 90-05, dated February 28,
1991.
12 Rev. 03/28/96 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. 4792
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT
SDP 90-05(E) TO ALLOW THE ADDITION OF A PUMP ISLAND
AT THE EXISTING GAS STATION, A 19,371 SQUARE FOOT
EXPANSION TO THE EXISTING WAREHOUSE, INCLUDING
TWO NEW ROOF-MOUNTED HVAC UNITS, AND THE
ADDITION OF 55 PARKING SPACES, ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT
ROAD, BEWTEEN ARMADA DRIVE AND PASEO DEL NORTE
IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5.
CASE NAME: COSTCO GAS STATION/BUILDING
EXPANSION
CASE NO.: SDP 90-05(E)
WHEREAS, Design Development Group, “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Costco Wholesale, Inc.,
“Owner”, described as
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 17542, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder June 27, 1995, in the City of Carisbad,
County of San Diego, State of California
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Site Development
Plan Amendment as shown on Exhibit(s) “A” - “F” dated July 19,2000, on file in the’planning
Department, COSTCO GAS STATION/BUILDING EXPANSION - SDP 90-05(E) as
provided by Chapter 2 1.06 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 19th day of July, 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.
WHEREAS, on May 7,1991, the City Council approved PRICE CLUB - SDP
90-05, as described and conditioned in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3209. 3’3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, on April 3, 1996, the Planning Commission approved PRICE
CLUB EXPANSION - SDP 90-05(A), as described and conditioned in Planning Commission
Resolution No. 3913.
WHEREAS, on February 19, 1997, the Planning Commission approved
PRICE CLUB PROPERTY ADJUSTMENT - SDP 90-05(B), as described and conditioned in
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4065.
WHEREAS, on October 21,1997, the City Council approved PRICECOSTCO
GASOLINE - SDP 90-05(C), as described and conditioned in Planning Commission Resolution
No. 4143.
WHEREAS, on January 20, 1999, the Planning Commission approved
COSTCO WHOLESALE HVAC ROOF UNITS - SDP 90-05(D), as described and
conditioned in Planning Commission Resolution No. 4454.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of COSTCO GAS STATION/
BUILDING EXPANSION - SDP 90-05(E), based on the following findings
and subject to the following conditions:
Findiws:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration and the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon
prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
b. 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
C. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
PC RESO NO. 4792 -2- w
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
d. based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
That the requested use is properly related. to the site, surroundings and environmental
settings, is consistent with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, will
not be detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the area in which
the proposed use is to be located, and will not adversely impact the site, surroundings or
traffic circulation, in that the additional retail services expand the variety of
commercial opportunities in the area; the expanded building and gasoline station do
not produce any parking or circulation impacts; the proposed HVAC units will be
screened from public views.
That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in
that the proposed building expansion, additional gas station pump island, and
additional parking spaces can fit within the existing site without modification to the
existing size and shape of the site or internal traffic circulation routes.
‘That all yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust
the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be
provided and maintained, in that the proposed receiving area will be screened from
views from the west by a screen wall; the proposed redesigned receiving area
improves the views from the south; the additional parking will not impact the
existing landscaped berm along Palomar Airport Road; and the proposed gas
station expansion will add landscaping to the site.
That the street systems serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic
generated by the proposed use, in that the project will generate an additional 2,450
ADT which will not impact the levels of service of the surrounding roadways and
key intersections to an unacceptable level.
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 project is conditioned to pay the Local Facilities Management Zone park-in-
lieu fee for non-residential developments
C. 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.
That the project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual (Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 14.28.020 and Landscape Manual Section I B).
PC RESO NO. 4792 -3- 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
8. 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 grading or
building permit, whichever occurs first.
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. The 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
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.
5. The 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, (b) City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether
discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and
(c) Developer/Operator’s installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby,
including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions.
PC RESO NO. 4792 -4- &b
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
The Developer shall submit to Planning Department a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar
copy of the Site Plan reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making
body.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the 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, including but not limited to the
payment of non-residential park-in-lieu fees.
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.
The Developer is aware that the City is preparing a non-residential housing impact fee
(linkage fee) consistent with Program 4.1 of the Housing Element. The applicant is
further aware that the City may determine that certain non-residential projects may have
to pay a linkage fee, in order to be found consistent with the Housing Element of the
General Plan. If a linkage fee is established by City Council ordinance and/or resolution
and this project becomes subject to a linkage fee pursuant to said ordinance and/or
resolution, then the Developer, or his/her/their successor(s) in interest shall pay the
linkage fee. The linkage fee shall be paid at the time of issuance of building permits,
except for projects involving a request for a non-residential planned development for an
existing development, in which case, the fee shall be paid on approval of the final map,
parcel map or certificate of compliance, required to process the non-residential PUD,
whichever pertains. If linkage fees are required for this project, and they are not paid, this
project will not be consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project will
become null and void.
The 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.
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.
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 Amendment and Coastal
Development Permit Amendment by Resolutions No. 4792, 4793 and 4794,
PC RESO NO. 4792 -5- d/
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
14.
15.
16.
respectively, 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.
This approval is granted subject to the approval of CUP 90-03(C) and CDP 97-05(A)
and is subject to all findings and conditions contained in Planning Commission
Resolutions No. 4793 and 4794 for those other approvals.
Approval of SDP 90-05(E) supplements the approvals of SDP 90-05, SDP 90-05(A),
SDP 90-05(B), SDP 90-05(C) and SDP 90-05(D). All conditions of approval of
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 3209, 3913, 4065, and 4143, remain in full
force and effect except as modified herein.
No additional expansions or use intensifications are allowed within the Costco site
unless the applicant prepares and submits a parking study to the Planning
Department to indicate that there is adequate parking to accommodate the
expansion or intensified use.
Engineering:
17. The applicant shall pay the full Traffic Impact Fees required for this use. The fees
shall be based upon current traffic generation rates as identified in the SANDAG
trafftc generation chart for a discount club, a fast food restaurant, and a gasoline
facility similar to this use. Credit shall be given for Traffic Impact Fees already
paid as part of this application.
18. The Urban Pollutant Basin and onsite NPDES system shall be repaired and
operational as part of the day-to-day operations of this facility. An annual report of
maintenance and effectiveness shall be submitted to the City for review.
Code Reminders:
19. 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 #l special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable
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 are not paid, this
approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.
20. The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
21. 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.
PC RESO NO. 4792 -6- 28
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
22. The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements
pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code.
23. 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.
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. 4792 -7- 39
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 19th day of July 2000, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Baker, Heineman,
L’Heureux, Nielsen, Segall, and Trigas
NOES: . .
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairpers6n
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
PC RESO NO. 4792 -8- 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4793
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AMENDMENT TO ALLOW THE ADDITION OF A PUMP
ISLAND AT THE EXISTING GAS STATION, AND A 19,371
SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION TO THE EXISTING
WAREHOUSE, INCLUDING TWO NEW ROOF-MOUNTED
HVAC UNITS, ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED
SOUTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, BETWEEN
ARMADA DRIVE AND PASEO DEL NORTE IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5
CASE NAME: COSTCO GAS STATION/BUILDING
EXPANSION
CASE NO.: CUP 90-03(C)
WHEREAS, Design Development Group, “Developer”, has tiled a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Costco Warehouse, Inc.,
“Owner”, described as
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 17542, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder June 27, 1995, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Conditional Use
Permit Amendment as shown on Exhibit(s) “A” - “F” dated July 19, 2000, on fiie in the
Carlsbad Planning Department COTSCO GAS STATION/BUILDING EXPANSION - CUP
90-03(C), as provided by the conditions of approval of CUP 90-03 and Chapter 21.42 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 19th day of July 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 amendment.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, on May 7,1991, the City Council approved PRICE CLUB - CUP
90-03, as described and conditioned in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3210, and.
WHEREAS, on October 21, 1997, the City Council approved COSTCO
GASOLINE - CUP 90-03(A), as described and conditioned in Planning Commission Resolution
No. 4144, and.
WHEREAS, on January 6, 1998, the City Council approved COSTCO
OUTDOOR SEATING - CUP 90-03(B), as described and conditioned in Planning Commission
Resolution No. 4209.
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.
W That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of COSTCO GAS STATION/BUILDING
EXPANSION - CUP 90-03(C), based on the following findings and subject to
the following conditions:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby rind:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration and the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon
prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
b. 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
C. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
d. based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
2. That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, is
essentially in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, and
is not detrimental to existing uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the
proposed use is located, in that the additional retail services expand the variety of
PC RESO NO. 4793 -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
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
commercial opportunities in the area; the expanded building and gasoline station do
not produce any parking or circulation impacts; the proposed HVAC units will be
screened from public views.
That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in
that the proposed building expansion, additional gas station pump island, and
additional parking spaces can fit within the existing site without modification to the
existing size and shape of the site or internal traffic circulation routes.
That all the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to
adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be
provided and maintained, in that the proposed loading area will be screened from
views from the west by a screen wall; the proposed redesigned loading area
improves the views from the south; the additional parking will not impact the
existing landscaped berm along Palomar Airport Road; the proposed gas station
expansion will add landscaping to the site.
That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic
generated by the proposed use, in that the project will generate an additional 2,450
ADT which will not impact the levels of service of the surrounding roadways and
key intersections to an unacceptable level.
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.
That the building forms, 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; and
That the project complies with all development and design criteria of the overlay zone.
Conditions:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to grading or
building permit, whichever occurs first.
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 Conditional Use Permit Amendment.
2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Conditional Use Permit Amendment documents, as necessary
PC PESO NO. 4793 -3- 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
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
-.
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.
The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
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
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.
The 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 Conditional Use Permit
Amendment, (b) City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether
discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and
(c) Developer/Operator’s installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby,
including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the
facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions.
The Developer shall submit to Planning Department a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar
copy of the Site Plan reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making
body.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the 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.
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.
This Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Director on a yearly
basis to determine if all conditions of this permit have been met and that the use does
not have a substantial negative effect on surrounding properties or the public health
and welfare. If the Planning Director determines that the use has such substantial
negative effects, the Planning Director shall recommend that the Planning
14 PC RESO NO. 4793 -4- -,
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
11.
12.
13.
14.
Commission, after providing the permittee the opportunity to be heard, add additional
conditions to reduce or eliminate the substantial negative effects.
This Conditional Use Permit is granted for .a period of five (5) 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 five (5) years upon written
application of the permittee made no less than 90 days prior to the expiration date.
The Planning Commission may not grant such extension, unless it finds that there are
no substantial negative effects on surrounding land uses or the public’s health and
welfare. If a substantial negative effect on surrounding land uses or the public’s
health and welfare is found, the extension shall be denied or granted with conditions
which will eliminate or substantially reduce such effects. There is no limit to the
number of extensions the Planning Commission may grant.
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 approval is granted subject to the approval of SDP 90-05(E) and CDP 97-05(A) and
is subject to all findings and conditions contained in Planning Commission
Resolutions No. 4792 and 4794 for those other approvals.
Approval of CUP 90-03(C) supplements the approvals of CUP 90-03, CUP 90-03(A),
and CUP 90-03(B). All conditions of approval of Planning Commission Resolutions
No. 3210,4144, and 4209, remain in full force and effect except as modified herein.
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
PC RESO NO. 4793 -5- 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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 19th day of July 2000 by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Baker, Heineman,
L’Heureux, Nielsen, Segall, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chair-pen!?&
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOk?!MILLI%
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 4793 -6- 36
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. 4794
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFQRNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
AMENDMENT CDP 97-05(A) TO ALLOW THE ADDITION OF
A PUMP ISLAND AT THE EXISTING GAS STATION, A
19,371 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION TO THE EXISTING
WAREHOUSE, INCLUDING TWO NEW ROOF-MOUNTED
HVAC UNITS, AND THE ADDITION OF 55 PARKING
SPACES ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF
PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, BETWEEN ARAMADA DRIVE
AND PASEO DEL NORTE IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 5.
CASE NAME: COSTCO GAS STATION/BUILDING
EXPANSION
CASE NO.: CDP 97-05(A)
WHEREAS, Design Development Group, “Developer”, has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Costco Wholesale, Inc.,
“Owner”, described as
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 17542, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder June 27, 1995, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal
Development Permit as shown on Exhibits “A” - “F” dated July 19, 2000, on file in the
Planning Department, COSTCO GAS STATION/BUILDING EXPANSION - CDP 97-05(A)
as provided by Chapter 21.201.040 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 19th day of July 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.
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
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of COSTCO GAS STATION/BUILDING
EXPANSION - CDP 97-05(A), based on the following findings and subject to
the following conditions:
Findinps:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration and the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon
prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
b. 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
C. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
d. based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
2.
3.
4.
5.
That the proposed development is in conformance with the Certified Local Coastal
Program and all applicable policies in that no agricultural lands, environmentally
sensitive habitats, shoreline access, coastal erosion or visual panoramas are located
within the Costco site therefore no impacts to such will occur..
The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3
of the Coastal Act in that no coastal access or recreation opportunities exist on the
developed commercial site.
The project is not located in the Coastal Agriculture Overlay Zone, according to
Map X of the Land Use Plan, certified September 1980, and, therefore, is not subject
to the provisions of the Coastal Agriculture Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.202 of the
Zoning Ordinance).
The project is consistent with the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone
(Chapter 21.203 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 exist on the
Costco site; and the site is not prone to landslides or susceptible to accelerated
erosion, floods, or liquefaction.
PC PESO NO. 4794 -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
6. The project is not located between the first public road and the ocean and,
therefore, is not subject to the provisions of the Coastal Shoreline Development
Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.204 of the Zoning Ordinance).
7. The project site is not located within the Mello I segment of the City’s Local Coastal
Program and, therefore, is not subject to the provisions of the Coastal Resource
Overlay Zone Mello I Segment (Chapter 21.205 of the Zoning Ordinance).
Conditions:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to grading or
building permit, whichever occur first.
1. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Coastal Development Permit 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.
2. This approval is granted subject to the approval of SDP 90-05(E) and CUP 90-03(C and
is subject to all findings and conditions contained in Planning Commission
Resolutions No. 4792 and 4793, for those other approvals
3. 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 21.201.2 10 of the Zoning Ordinance.
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. 4794 -3- 39
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 19th day of July 2000, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Baker, Heineman,
L’Heureux, Nielsen, Segall, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
WILLIAM COMPAS, Chairpefson -
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
PC RESO NO. 4794 -4- %
I.
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department EXHIBIT 4
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No. 9 0
Application complete date: April 30, 2000
P.C. AGENDA OF: July 19,200O Project Planner: Michael Grim
Project Engineer: Clyde Wickham
SUBJECT: SDP 90-05tEYCUP 90-03iCYCDP 97-05(A) - COSTCO GAS STATION/
BUILDING EXPANSION - Request for a Site Development Plan Amendment,
Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Coastal Development Permit
Amendment to allow the addition of a gasoline pump island at the existing Costco
gasoline station, a 19,371 square foot expansion to the existing Costco warehouse,
including two new roof-mounted HVAC units, and the addition of 55 parking
spaces, on property located south of Palomar Airport Road, between Armada
Drive and Paseo de1 Norte in Local Facilities Management Zone 5.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4791,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director
and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4792, 4793, and 4794, RECOM-
MENDING APPROVAL of Site Development Plan Amendment SDP 90-05(E), Conditional
Use Permit Amendment CUP 90-03(C), and Coastal Development Permit Amendment CDP 97-
05(A), based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
The proposal involves a Site Development Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit
Amendment and Coastal Development Permit Amendment to allow the addition of a gasoline
pump island at the existing Costco gasoline station, a 19,371 square foot expansion to the
existing Costco warehouse, including two new roof-mounted HVAC units, and the addition of 55
parking spaces. A Site Development Plan Amendment is required because of the Q Overlay
zoning designation. A Conditional Use Permit Amendment is required for the gas station use. A
Coastal Development Permit Amendment is needed for development in the City’s Coastal Zone.
The project conforms to all applicable regulations and staff has no issues with the proposal.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Design Development Group is requesting approval of a Site Development Plan Amendment,
Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Coastal Development Permit Amendment to allow
several expansions or revisions to the current Costco commercial development. The proposal has
three essential components. The first is a 19,371 square foot expansion to the existing
warehouse, including expanded retail and food service areas, and a new receiving area. The
second component is the expansion of the existing gas station through the addition of another
SDP 90-05(E)/CUP 90-OJ(C)/CDP 97-05(A) - COSTCO GAS STAI‘~ON/EKJILDING EXPANSION
July 19,200O
Page 2
pump island and an extension to the gas station canopy. The third part of the proposal involves
the addition of 55 parking spaces along the northern perimeter of the existing parking area.
The Costco site is designated Regional Commercial (R) on the City’s General Plan and is zoned
General Commercial with a Qualified Development Overlay (C-2-Q). The site is located south
of Palomar Airport Road, between Armada Drive and Paseo de1 Norte. The site is also within
the City’s Coastal Zone and within the boundaries of the Commercial/Visitor-Serving Overlay
zone. The site is currently developed with a retail warehouse, gas station a,nd associated parking,
landscaping, and facilities. To the north of the site is Palomar Airport Road, with the flower
fields to the north of the roadway. East and south of the Costco site are open space areas and
west of the site are developed sites containing office, retail, restaurant, and daycare uses.
The Costco site has been reviewed by the Planning Commission/City Council on six previous
occasions. First was the original approval on May 2 1, 1991, which included the 12 1,000 square
foot Price Club building and associated parking and loading areas, a graded pad on Paseo de1
Norte for a future 15,000 square foot office building, and a graded pad on Palomar Airport Road
for a future 5,000 square foot retail building. In April 1996, the Price Club received a Site
Development Plan Amendment to add 12,200 square feet of interior space to the existing
warehouse for meat and deli preparation, bakery, and additional sales display areas. In March
1997, the Planning Commission approved a boundary adjustment to the western portion of the
site to facilitate the design of the adjacent Carl’s Jr. project.
In October 1997, the City Council approved amendments to the Costco permits to allow the
construction of a members-only, automated gasoline station with three pump islands and a
canopy in the northeastern portion of the existing parking lot. Shortly after that approval, in
January 1998, the City Council approved an amendment to the Costco Conditional Use Permit to
allow the placement of up to 30 outdoor tables for use by food service patrons. Most recently, in
January 1999, the Planning Commission approved the placement of roof-mounted HVAC units
on the warehouse building, provided the roof screens were covered with a finish and painted to
match the existing building.
The current proposal would add 19,371 square feet of floor space to the existing warehouse
building, add an additional pump island and extend the canopy at the existing gas station, and
add 55 parking spaces to the parking lot. The warehouse expansion would include: 9,602 square
feet of retail sales area along the northern side; 169 square feet of additional food service area on
the eastern side; and 9,602 square feet of additional receiving area on the south side. The
northern building expansion would also expand the building’s entrance, as well as the existing
overhanging canopy. The redesigned entry would also increase the shared pedestrian/vehicular
circulation area in front of the building, resulting in a loss of 18 parking spaces. The southern
building expansion would result in a redesigned receiving area, rotated 90 degrees to better
screen the operations from the residences to the south. A new screen wall and landscaping would
screen the receiving operations from properties to the west.
The proposed improvements to the gas station area include the addition of a pump island on the
south side of the existing station and the extension of the overhead canopy over the new island.
These improvements would also require the conversion of 10 existing parking spaces into a
landscaped median. The current proposal also involves the construction of 55 additional parking
spaces along the northern perimeter of the existing parking lot. All proposed improvements
+%
SDP 90-05(E)/CUP 90-OJ(C)/CDP 97-05(A) - COSTCO GAS STA r’lON/BUILDING EXPANSION
July 19,200O
would match the existing structures with materials and colors. The warehouse expansion and gas
canopy extension would follow the existing building height, that being 30 feet and 17.5 feet,
respectively.
No revisions are proposed to the existing building materials, colors or architecture, nor are there
revisions proposed to the existing signage. With the exception of small landscaped parking lot
medians, no revisions to the existing landscaping are proposed. All existing uses are proposed to
remain in their existing intensity.
The Costco Gas Station/Building Expansion project is subject to the following regulations:
A. General Plan;
B. Local Coastal Program;
C. C-2-Q - General Commercial Zone with a Qualified Development Overlay (Chapters
2 1.28 and 2 1.06 of the Zoning Ordinance);
D. Conditional Use Ordinance (Chapter 2 1.42 of the Zoning Ordinance);
E. Commercial/Visitor-Serving Overlay Ordinance (Chapter 2 1.208 of the Zoning
Ordinance);
F. Growth Management Ordinance (Chapter 2 1.90 of the Zoning Ordinance);
G. Zone 5 Local Facilities Management Plan.
IV. ANALYSIS
The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project’s
consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. The following analysis
section discusses compliance with each of these regulations/policies utilizing both text and
tables.
A. General Plan
The Costco Gas Station/Building Expansion project is consistent with the applicable policies and
programs of the General Plan. Particularly relevant to the commercial expansion proposal are the
Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Open Space and Conservation, and Public Safety Elements.
Table 1 below indicates how the project complies with these particular elements of the General
Plan.
43
SDP 90-05(E)/CUP 90-OJ(C)/CDP 97-05(A) - COSTCO GAS STAIION/EKJILDING EXPANSION
July 19,200O
TABLE 1 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
Element
Land Use
Use Classification/Goal,
Objective or Program
Project site is designated for
Regional Commercial (R)
uses.
Proposed Use and
Improvements
Proposed expansion of existing
retail uses is consistent with
Regional Commercial designation.
Compliance
Yes
Circulation
Housing
Commercial developments Parking lot is adequately
should provide landscaped landscaped and the gas station Yes
parking lots and use canopy extension and building
harmonious architecture expansion match the existing
between buildings. architecture and materials.
Provide safe, adequate and All parking areas provide adequate
attractively landscaped circulation and landscaping.
parking facilities. Yes
Achieve a balance between The project has been conditioned
local jobs created and the cost to pay a non-residential housing
of housing relative to the linkage fee, should one be adopted Yes
wages. by the City prior to building
permit issuance.
Open Space and A city that protects No expansion of the existing
Conservation environmentally sensitive land Costco site is proposed and the
and buffer areas. NPDES pollutant elimination Yes
system is conditioned to be
maintained at a higher frequency
with more stringent reporting
requirements.
Public Safety Design all structures in
accordance with the seismic
design standards of the UE3C
and State building
requirements.
The gas station and building
expansions are designed in
conformance with all seismic
design standards.
Yes
Parks and To finance future public park
Recreation and recreation facilities.
Project is conditioned to pay non-
residential park in-lieu fee for
Zone 5. Yes
Given the above, the Costco Gas Station/Building Expansion is consistent with the applicable
goals, programs, policies and objectives of the General Plan.
B. Local Coastal Program
The Costco site is located 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 the prevention of
SDP 90-05(E)lCUP g@bJ(c)/CDP 97-05(A) - COSTCO GAS STAl’ION/EWILDING EXPANSION
July 19, 2000
geologic instability and erosion. The site is currently developed and no agricultural or
environmentally sensitive lands exist on site. The project will conform to the City of Carlsbad
Engineering Standards with regard to erosion control. Since the site is located 1.3 miles from the
Pacific Ocean, no shoreline development regulations apply. No scenic resources exist on or near
the developed site. Given the above, the Costco Gas Station/Building Expansion project is
consistent with the Mello II land use policies and the applicable implementing ordinances.
C. C-2-Q - General Commercial with a Qualified Development Overlay Zone
The Costco property is zoned C-2-Q and therefore subject to the provisions of those zoning
designations. The restrictions contained in the C-2 - General Commercial zone deal mostly with
uses, however there are standards regarding building height and placement on the lot. The
proposed expansions do not involve any uses not currently existing on the commercial site.
With regard to development standards, the maximum building height in the C-2 zone is 35 feet to
the peak of the roof. The proposed gas station canopy expansion does not exceed the existing
canopy height of 17.5 feet to the top of the roof and the proposed retail and loading zone building
expansions equal the existing warehouse building height of 30 feet. The building placement
standards in the C-2 zone only apply when the property is adjacent to residential property, which
is not the case for the Costco property.
The Qualified Development Overlay Zone does not contain any specific development standards
but does allow the Planning Commission to increase any standards or impose special conditions
that may be deemed necessary. The project includes the addition of 55 parking spaces, even
though the existing parking supply could accommodate the proposed expansions. The project is
also conditioned to screen the proposed roof-mounted HVAC units with roof screening, covered
and colored to match the existing building. Given the above, the proposed expansions to the gas
station, warehouse building and parking lot are consistent with the C-2-Q zoning designations.
While not contained in the C-2 zoning requirements, a discussion of the parking requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance and the project’s conformance is appropriate in this section. The proposed
gas station expansion would replace 10 parking spaces with a landscaped median. The proposed
building expansion would reconfigure the vehicular circulation in front of the warehouse and
remove 18 spaces in the process. The proposed 19,371 square foot building expansion would
generate a demand for an additional 44 parking spaces. To partially offset the loss of parking
and the generation of additional parking demand, the proposal also involves the creation of 55
new parking spaces along the northern edge of the parking lot. Table ‘2 below details the
parking requirements and amount of parking provided for the Costco proposal.
I TABLE 2 - PARKING REQUIREMENTS I -
Retail
Use Parking Ratio
1 space per 300 sq. ft.
Square Footage Parking Required
100,588 sq. ft. (existing) 336 spaces
9,602 sq. ft. (proposed) 32 spaces
Food Service 1 space per 100 sq. ft. 1,500 ft. (existing) sq. 15 spaces
169 sq. ft. (proposed) 2 spaces
SDP 90-05(E)/CUP 90-oJ(C)/CDP 97-05(A) - COSTCO GAS STA I’ION/E3UILDING EXPANSION
July 19, 2000
I TABLE 2 - PARKING REQUIREMENTS I
Use Parking Ratio Square Footage Parking Required
Warehouse/Receiving 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. 24,600 sq. ft. (existing) 25 spaces
9,600 sq. ft. (proposed) 10 spaces
Motor Vehicle Repair
Office
4 spaces per bay (up to 3) 2 spaces per bay (over 3) 6 bays (existing) 18 spaces
1 space per sq. 250 ft. 4,200 ft. (existing) sq. 17 spaces
( TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED I 455 spaces I
TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED (including removal and replacement) I 693 spaces I
In addition to the parking provision and requirements detailed above, the Costco site and parking
is partially shared by the Oscar’s Carlsbad proposal (SDP 90-05(F)). The Oscar’s property is
located in the northeast comer of the Costco parking lot and currently contains 68 spaces. The
Oscar’s proposal involves a 5,250 square foot restaurant with 1,800 square feet of outdoor
dining. In addition to the building, the Oscar’s proposal would add 19 new parking spaces along
the northern perimeter of the parking area for a total of 87 spaces on the property. The parking
demand generated by the restaurant is 103 spaces, therefore 16 spaces are needed from the
Costco parking lot to accommodate the Oscar’s restaurant. Given that the two sites have a
parking agreement and share some of the parking area, and that the Costco site is still overparked
by 238 spaces, the parking is adequate to accommodate both the proposed Costco expansion and
the new Oscar’s restaurant.
With regard to traffic generation, the proposed additions are estimated to generate an additional
1,450 average daily trips (ADT). The project traffic report indicates that the intersections that
were analyzed currently operate at a level of service (LOS) C or better (according to the City’s
Growth Management Performance Standards) with the exception of Palomar Airport Road and
Interstate 5 Northbound, which operates at LOS D. The proposed project will add a minimal
amount of traffic to both the morning and evening peak traffic periods. The expansions will add
42 ADT to the morning peak and 128 ADT to the evening peak. After analysis of the project’s
traffic generation and the levels of service along the roadways and intersections serving the
project, the Engineering Department has determined that the additional traffic generated by the
proposed expansions does not have significant negative impacts on traffic circulation in the area
and no additional conditions are required.
D. Conditional Use Ordinance
Since the project involves the enhancement of a gasoline station in a commercial zone, a
Conditional Use Permit Amendment is required pursuant to Section 21.42.010(7) of the Zoning
Ordinance. The four findings required for a Conditional Use Permit address compatibility and
harmony of the use with the project site and its existing and future surroundings. The proposed
gas station expansion would extend to the south of the existing gas station, away from Palomar
Airport Road. The parking lot striping and design have been revised to accommodate the
additional lanes of gas station circulation and the landscaping around the gas station is being
augmented on the south side. The extension to the canopy would maintain the same height as the
existing, 17.5-foot high canopy that is only partially visible from Palomar Airport Road. As
SDP 90-05(E)/CUP 90-OJ(C)/CDP 97-05(A) - COSTCO GAS STA’I‘ION/BUILDING EXPANSION
July 19,200O
discussed above, the additional traffic generated by the warehouse building and gas station
expansions will not impact the levels of service of the surrounding roadways and key
intersections to an unacceptable level. Given the above, the gas station expansion is consistent
with the Conditional Use Ordinance.
E. Commercial/Visitor-Serving Overlay Zone
The Costco site is located within the City’s Commercial/Visitor-Serving Overlay Zone and is,
therefore, subject to the applicable provisions of Chapter 2 1.208 of the Zoning Ordinance. The
types of standards regulated by the overlay zone include parking, signage, building materials and
colors, architecture, building setbacks, and landscaping. The findings required to approve
permits in the overlay zone involve the project being adequately designed to accommodate
visitor and tourist traffic and the project including complimentary building forms, colors,
materials and architecture.
According to Section 21.208.130 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, existing uses within the
overlay zone are exempt from the regulations of the ordinance unless the use is intensified or the
structure containing the use is expanded by over 200 square feet. In either case, only that
intensified or expanded portion is subject to the provisions of CommercialNisitor-Serving
Overlay zone. Therefore, the proposed expansions to the warehouse and the gas station are
subject to the provisions of the overlay zone.
Since the expansions are mimicking the existing building materials, colors and architecture, they
are consistent with the overlay zone provision of including complimentary building forms, etc.
Since no revisions are occurring to the existing signage, no compliance with the overlay zone
requirements is mandated. With regard to building height, the overlay zone defers to the
underlying zoning. The existing 30-foot and 17.5-foot high buildings on the site are below the
maximum building height of 35 feet for the C-2 zone. Since the expansion of the canopy is on
the south side, the expansion conforms to the 50-foot setback from Palomar Airport Road
required by the overlay zone. Given the above, the proposal is consistent with the
Commercial/Visitor-Serving Overlay Zone.
F. Growth Management
The Costco project involves no residential uses, therefore many of the facilities regulated by the
Growth Management Ordinance are not affected. Table 3 below shows the project’s compliance
with the applicable Growth Management facility requirements.
I TABLE 3 - GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE I
Standard
City Administration
Impacts/Standards
N/A
Compliance
Yes
Library N/A Yes
( Waste Water treatment 1 100EDU Yes
-
SDP 90-05(E)/CUP 90-O>(C)/CDP 97-05(A) - COSTCO GAS STATlON/FKJILDING EXPANSION
July 19,200O
I TABLE 3 - GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE I
Standard I Impacts/Standards I Compliance I
Parks
Drainage
Circulation
Fire
Open Space
Schools
N/A
PLDA C
1,450 ADT
Fire Station No. 4
N/A
*.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
CUSD Yes
I Sewer Collection System 1 100 EDU I Yes I
Water 22,000 GPD Yes
G. Zone 5 Local Facilities Management Plan
The Costco Site is located within the Local Facilities Management Zone 5. There are no special
development conditions in the zone plan that apply to this non-residential project, except for the
requirement for a 40 cents per square foot park-in-lieu fee. All public facilities needed to serve
the development are already in place. In addition, the project is conditioned to pay a Traffic
Impact Fee as required for the proposed use expansions as well as conform to all current and
future requirements of the Zone Plan. As is standard practice, a Public Facilities Fee will be
collected for the warehouse expansion at the time of building permit issuance. Given the above,
the proposed Costco expansion project is consistent with the Zone 5 Local Facilities
Management Plan.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Earlier analysis of the Costco site has been conducted on numerous occasions. The earliest
analysis was through the Master Environmental Impact Report for the 1994 General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-Ol), which reviewed the potential impacts associated with buildout of the City’s
General Plan, including transportation and air quality impacts. Next was the Conditional
Negative Declaration for the original Price Club store (SDP go-OS>, which reviewed the potential
impacts of the development of the Price Club site (now known as Costco) with a 121,000 square
foot commercial retail and warehouse building and associated parking, landscaping and
improvements.
The most recent environmental documentation for the site was the Negative Declaration for the
PriceCostco Gasoline State (SDP 90-05(C)/CUP 90-03(A), which reviewed the potential impacts
of the construction and operation of a members-only, automated gasoline station within the
developed Costco parking lot. The current proposal involves the expansion of the existing
warehouse and gas station within the developed portion of the Costco site. Since no expansion
of the existing site is proposed and no new uses are being added to the site, the current project’s
potential impacts on land use and planning, population and housing, geology, air quality,
transportation and circulation, biological resources, cultural resources and recreation have been
previously analyzed in the earlier environmental analysis.
SDP 90-05(E)/CUP 90-OJ(C)/CDP 97-05(A) - COSTCO GAS STAl’ION/BUILDING EXPANSION
July 19,200O
The current environmental analysis evaluated the project’s potential impacts on water and other
utilities and services, hazards, noise, and aesthetics. The analysis found that no adverse impacts
would occur due to the proposal, therefore, the Planning Director issued a Negative Declaration
for the proposed Costco Gas Station/Building Expansion project on June 26, 2000 for public
review. No comments were received within the 20-day notice period.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4791
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4792
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4793
Planning Commission Resolution No. 4794
Location Map
Disclosure Statement
Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
Background Data Sheet
Exhibits “A” - “F”, dated July 19,200O
MG:mh
49
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant’s statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require
discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee.
The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot
be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print.
Note:
Person is defined as “Any individual, fkm, co-partnexship, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county, city
municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit.”
Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and properry owner must be
provided below.
1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant’s agent)
Provide the COMPmTE. LEGAL names and addresses of & persons having a financial
interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corDoration or partnership, 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 publiclv-owned corDoration, include the
names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if
;T*) :‘;‘!$//f . ;;r
Address Address
2. 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 partnership, 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 publiclv-
owned comoration, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate
Address Address
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 436-11610 FAX (760) 438-0894 @
3. NON-PROFIT 0~ JANIZATION OR TRUST
If any person identified pursuant to (I ) or (2) above is a nonurofit organisation or a trust, list the
names and addresses of ANY person serving a~ ,an officer or director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the.
Non Profit/Trust /I Non Profit/Trust
Title Title
Address Address
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff.
Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months?
0 Yes IT No If yes, please indicate person(s): Amr 7-0 Q&R
A&-e
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
, 0
&+qyf$ii&& s df* 47&A Signature of owner/date
Th p?WC& co &a
.cos7m l5$!&ES&LG (p&p,
Print or type name of owner
- \ .
Print or type name of applicant
Signature of owner/applicant’s agent if applicable/date
Print or type name of owner/applicant’s agent
H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSLlRE STATEMENT 5/98
3-7
Page 2 of 2
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: Costco Gas Station/Building Expansion - SDP 90-05(D)/CUP 90-
03(C)/CDP 97-05(A)
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 5 GENERAL PLAN: Regional Commercial
ZONING: C-2-O - General Commercial with a Oualified Development Overaly Zone
DEVELOPER’S NAME: Design Development Group
ADDRESS: 7625 Havvenhurst Ave., Suite 12A, Van NUYS, CA 91406
PHONE NO.: 818-782-6484 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 21 l-040-35
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 14.8
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: March, 2001
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 =
Circulation: Demand in ADT =
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. =
Open Space: Acreage Provided =
Schools:
(Demands to be determined by staff)
Sewer: Demands in EDU
Water: Demand in GPD =
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,450
A
N/A
N/A
100
22,000
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
APPLICANT:
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
SDP 90-05(E)/CUP 90-03(C)/CDP 97-05(A)
Costco Gas Station/Building Expansion
Desire Development Group
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request for a Site Development Plan Amendment,
Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Coastal Development Permit Amendment to allow the
addition of a gasoline pump island at the existing Costco gasoline station and a 19,371 square
foot expansion to the existing Costco warehouse, including two new roof-mounted HVAC units,
on pronertv generally located south of Palomar Airport Road, between Armada Drive and Paseo
de1 Norte in Local Facilities Management Zone 5.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 17542, filed in the Office of the
Countv Recorder June 27, 1995. in the Citv of Carlsbad, Countv of San Diego, State of
California
APN: 21 l-040-35 Acres: 14.8 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: N/A
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: Regional Commercial (R)
Density Allowed: N/A Density Proposed: N/A
Existing Zone: C-2-O Proposed Zone: C-2-O
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
Zoning General Plan
Site C-2-Q R
North O-S OS
South O-S OS
East L-C PI
West R-P T-R/O
Current Land Use
Costco Warehouse
Flower fields
Open Space
Vacant
Davcare/Offce
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity):
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
w Negative Declaration, issued June 26.2000
0 Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
u Other,
EXHIBIT 5
DRAFT
9. SDP 90-05(EVCUP 90-03WCDP 97-05(A) - COSTCO GAS STATION/BUILDING
EXPANSION - Request for a Site Development Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit
Amendment and Coastal Development Permit Amendment to allow the addition of a
gasoline pump island at the existing Costco gasoline station, a 19, 371 square foot
expansion to the existing Costco warehouse, including two new roof-mounted HVAC units, and the addition of 55 parking spaces, on property located south of Palomar Airport
Road, between Armada Drive and Paseo del Norte in Local Facilities Management Zone 5.
Senior Planner Michael Grim presented agenda item #9 as follows: The proposal involves a Site
Development Plan amendment, Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Coastal Development Permit
Amendment to allow the expansion of the existing Co&co building and the gasoline station. The site is
located on the southwest corner of Palomar Airport Road and Armada Drive. The Costco site is
designated Regional Commercial (R) on the City’s General Plan and is zoned General Commercial with a
Qualified Development Overlay (C-2-Q).
The current proposal would add 19,371 square feet of floor space to the existing warehouse building; add
an additional pump island and extend the canopy at the existing gas station and add 55 parking spaces to
the parking lot. The warehouse expansion would include: 9,602 square feet of retail sales area along the
northern side; 169 square feet of additional food service area on the eastern side; and 9,602 square feet of additional receiving area on the south side. The proposed improvements of the gas station area
include the addition of a pump island with two dispensers on the south side of the existing station and the extension of the overhead canopy over the new island. One of the gasoline dispensers would be for
handicap individuals.
The northern building expansion would also expand the building’s entrance, as well as the existing
overhanging canopy. The redesigned entry would also increase the shared pedestrian/vehicular circulation area in front of the building, resulting in a net loss of 18 parking spaces. With the proposed
expansions the parking space requirements are 455 spaces, and 693 parking spaces will be provided.
There are no changes of use proposed with this project, and there are no additional uses proposed with this project; the expansions will only be expanding the existing facilities. There is no expansion of the overall site dimensions required to accommodate all of this issues.
The architecture for the expansion would match the existing buildings; no additional building height or any different materials will be added to the building.
PLANNING COMMISSION July 19,200O Page 1J
The proposed project is within the Commercial/Visitors Serving Tourist Overlay Zone and is subject to the
applicable provisions of Chapter 21.208 of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposal is consistent with the
CommercialAIisitor-Serving Overlay Zone.
The proposed project has been deemed consistent with the General Plan, the Local Coastal Program, the
Growth Management Ordinance, Local Facilities Management Plan and all related CEQA issues, therefore Staff is recommending approval of the project.
Commissioner Nielsen asked if the parking analysis took into account the new restaurant on the site.
Mr. Grim replied absolutely.
Commissioner Segall observing numerous cars parked at the facility; he questioned if the parked cars
belonged to employees or people in ride-share situations and if potential parking problems would arise.
Mr. Grim stated that Costco encourages its employees to park in the most distant parts of the parking lot. Once, Oscar’s restaurant opens Costco will direct their employees to park in a different distance area of
the parking lot.
Chairperson Compas asked the applicant to make a statement.
Kathy Nishihira, Costco Wholesale Corp Office, 999 Lake Drive, Issaquah, Washington, stated that the
additional island for dispensing gasoline was needed to decease the consumers wait for fueling. The additions to the building would allow Costco to add additional retail products and reconfigure the receiving
area, thus providing additional screening for the residential developments.
Commissioner Segall asked if ride-share vehicles used the distant parts of the parking lot.
David Caratini, 751 West Bluff Drive, stated not to his knowledge. He noted that upon the opening of
Oscar’s restaurant employee parking would be shifted to the back of the warehouse.
Chairperson Compas asked if the proposed changes would cause problems with the flow of traffic within the boundaries.
Mr. Caratini replied no.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY:
Chairperson Compas opened public testimony. As no one wished to speak, he closed public testimony.
Chairperson Compas asked for questions of Staff, seeing none he called for a Motion.
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Segall, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 4791, recommending
approval of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and.adopt
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4792, 4793, and 4794, recommending
approval of Site Development Plan Amendment SDP 90-05(E), Conditional Use Permit Amendment CUP 90-03(C) and Coastal Development Permit Amendment CDP 97-05(A), based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
VOTE: AYES: NOES:
ABSTAIN:
7-o-o Compas, Heineman, Trigas, Nielsen, L’Heureux, Baker, Segall
None
--Marilyn Strong - Costco Sidewalk -
-.- -
Page 1 __- -___- -- ~.---
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Bob Wojcik
Ray Patchett
9/l 2/00 10: 19AM
Costco Sidewalk
At the council briefing for Oscar’s, a request came up about requiring a sidewalk from Oscar’s to the
entrance of Costco. I had responded that Costco was in for review and we would take care of the
sidewalk then. As for sidewalk on Oscar’s site, I said that we could take care of it administratively through
the building plan check review. I did not know that the project planner for Costco had already looked into a sidewalk. His finding was that
a sidewalk could not fit on the site without doing m of the following items;
1. Remove landscaping 2. Remove parking
3. Construct a 550 foot long retaining waft
Presently, the site has less than today’s required amount of landscaping; to remove parking would require a parking study and another SDP amendment; constructing a wall would eliminate landscaping and cost
approximately $28000. For these reasons, staff does not recommend requiring additional sidewalk on the Costco site.
I apologize for being overly optimistic about the sidewalk and hope that this does not jeopardize Costco’s
application in any way.
If I should be at the Council meeting tonight to explain this or if there are questions or concerns, please contact me.
Thanks, Bob W.
cc: Clyde Wickham; Marilyn Strong; Mike Grim
, - . 4
, , ALL RECEIVE
FOR THE INFORMATlON OF THE Cl-W COUNCIL
DATE q//z CITY MANAGER
CA/ - I/ cc
(Form A)
TO: CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice
SDP 9&05(E)/CUP 90-03(C)/CDP 97-05(A) - Costco Gas Station /Building Expansion
for a public hearing before the City Council.
Please notice the item for the council meeting of August 15, 2000
Thank you.
,
Assistant City Man--
.-
July 28, 2000
Oate
3PY of &-g~&
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARJNG
COMPLETE DATE: April 30.2000
DESCRIPTION:
Request for a Site Development Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit Amendment
and Coastal Development Permit Amendment to allow the addition of a gasoline pump
island at the existing Costco gasoline station, a 19,371 square foot expansion to the
existing Costco warehouse, including two new roof-mounted HVAC units, and the
addition of 55 parking spaces.
LOCATION:
This project is within the City of Carlsbad’s Coastal Zone located south of Palomar
Airport Road, between Armada Drive and Paseo de1 Norte in Local Facilities
Management Zone 5.
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER:
21 l-040-35
APPLICANT:
Design Development Group
7625 Hayvenhurst Avenue, Ste. 12A
Van Nuys, CA 9 1406
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 July 19, 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 13,200O.
If you have any questions, or would like to be notified of the decision, please contact Mike Grim
at the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, Monday through Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,
Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008, (760) 602-
4623.
. . .
. . .
. . .
1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-731.4 - (760) 602-4600 l FAX (760) 602-8559
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
DESCRIPTION:
Request for a Site Development Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit
Amendment and Coastal Development Permit Amendment to allow the
addition of a gasoline pump island at the existing Costco gasoline station,
a 19,371 square foot expansion to the existing Costco warehouse,
including two new roof-mounted HVAC units, and the addition of 55
parking spaces.
LOCATION:
This project is within the City of Carlsbad’s Coastal Zone located south of
Palomar Airport Road, between Armada Drive and Paseo del Norte in
Local Facilities Management Zone 5.
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER: 21 I-040-35
APPLICANT :
Design Development group
7625 Hayvenhurst Avenue, Suite 12A
Van Nuys, CA 91406
A public hearing on the above proposed project will be held by the Carlsbad City
Council in the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad,
California on September 12, 2000 at 6 :00 p.m.
Persons are cordbially 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 September 8, 2000.
If you have any questions, or would like to be notified of the decision, please
contact Mike Grim at the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, Monday through
Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at 1635 Faraday
Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 920008, (760) 602-4623.
PUBLISH: WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 16,200O
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive * Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989 - (760) 434-2808 @
COSTCo GAS STATION/ BUILDING ADDITION
SDP 90=05(E)/CUP 90=03(C)/
CDP 97-05(A)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION This space is for the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp
(2010 & 2011 c.c.PJ
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Oiego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident
of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk
of the printer of
* North County Times
formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have
been adjudged newspapers of gsneral circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, for the dtles of Escondido, Oceanside, Cartsbad, Solana Beach and San Diego County; that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not
smaller than nonpareil), ha+ been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper
and not in any supplement thereof on the
following dates, to-wit:
August 16, 2000
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at
this
San Marcos
16th
, California
day
of August, 2000
Proof of Publication of
Notice of Public Hearing
NOTICE OF PU$Llq HEARING
ESCRlPTIdN: - __ -. . . - . . -. -. Request for a Site Development Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Coastal Development Permit Amendment to allow the addition of a gasoline pump island at the existing Costco gasoline station, a 19,371 square foot expansion to the existing Costco warehouse, including two new roof-mounted HVAC units, and the addition of 55 parking spaces.
10cA1I0I: This project is within the: City of Carlsbad’s Coastal Zone located south of Palomar ‘rport Road, between Armada Drive and Paseo del Norte in Local Facilities b anagement Zone 5. :
k%ESSOR’S PARCEL MUMBER: 211440-35
~PPLICAWT: . 1’ uesign Oevelopment~ group 7625 Hayvenhurst Avenue, Suite 12A Van Nuys, CA 91406
A pubfic he&tng on the above proposed project will be held by the Carlsbad Ci Y Couacil in the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, Ca rfornia on September 12, 2000 at 6:00 p.m.
Persons are cordially invited to attend the public hearing and provide the dpirinn msknrr with nmr nrd nr writtnn IYIII”.I lll”R”l.2 ..1.11 .A”, VlUl “I ..11..“11 comments they may have regarding the project. The nroiect will he. described and a staff ‘;,>,
Legal 6789flAugust 16.209g
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 513::
City Clerk 1 .Ibl
CITY OF ENCINITAS
505 S WLCAN AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988 VISTA CA 92085
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
CITY OF SAN MARCOS CITY OF OCEANSIDE
1 CIVIC CENTER DR 300 NORTH COAST HWY
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 OCEANSIDE CA 92054
VALLECITOS WATER DIST SD COUNTY PLANNING
788 SAN MARCOS BLVD STE B
SAN MARCOS CA 92069 5201 RUFFIN RD SAN DIEGO CA 92123
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST SANDAG
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR STE 800
SAN DIEGO CA 92123 401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
I.P.U.A. CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME REGIONAL WATER QUALITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND STE 50 STE B URBAN STUDIES
330 GOLDENSHORE 9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
LONG BEACH CA 90802 SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331 SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE CA COASTAL COMMISSION DESIGN DEVELOPMENT GROUP
2730 LOKER AVE WEST STE 103 STE 12A
CARLSBAD CA 92008 7575 METROPOLITAN DR 7625 HAYVENHURST AVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402 VAN NUYS CA 91466
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY
SERVICES
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER MIKE GRIM
kUfERY@ Address Labels
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING
DEPT
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
Laser 5160”
Carlsbad Properties Inc C B Ranch Enterprises Deo A & Thelma Madrid 520 S Virgil Ave 5600 Avenida Encinas 10 5900 Pasteur Ct 200
Los Angeles C 90020-1405 Carlsbad CA 92008-4452 Carlsbad CA 92008-7330
Jean J Haidar Stephen P Rockwell Four Sac Self-Storage C 5900 Pasteur Ct 200 5900 Pasteur Ct 200 2727 N Central Ave Carlsbad CA 92008-7330 Carlsbad CA 92008-7301 Phoenix AZ 85004-1120
Carlsbad Corporate Llc
PO Box 34089
Las Vegas NV 89133-4.089
Plaza Delnorte Llc Paul & Peggy Hadley
PO Box 1058 PO Box 12727
Cardiff By Th 92007-7058 Palm Desert C 92255-2727
Price Co The Brickell Enterprises In Carlbus Associates L P
999 Lake Dr 3074 Deer Meadow Dr 5600 Avenida Encinas 10 Issaquah WA 98027-8990 Danville CA 94506 Carl sbad CA 92008-4452
Pricesmart Inc James & Dorothy Gaiser Pacific Sales Kitchen&B
4649 Morena Blvd 3340 Ridgecrest Dr 2080 Washington Ave
San Diego CA 92117-3650 Carlsbad CA 92008-2027 Torrance CA 90501-3421
Konstantinos Manassakis Ray & Barbara Winter Winter
6030 Paseo De1 N PO Box 290 1745 Rocky Rd
Carlsbad CA 92009-1114 Dallas TX 75221-0290 Fullerton CA 92831-1233
Jcm Tom Co H G Fenton Cc U D C Homes Inc 1524 Dorcas St 7220 Trade St 10721 Treena St 200 San Diego CA 92110-1515 San Diego CA 92112 San Diego CA 92131-1039
Legoland California Inc 1 Lego Dr
Carlsbad CA 92008-4610
Occupant Occupant Occupant 800 Palomar Airport Rd 6118 Paseo De1 Norte 951 Palomar Airport Rd Carlsbad CA 92008-4443 Carlsbad CA 92009-1116 Carlsbad CA 92009-1110
Occupant Occupant 6100 Paseo De1 Norte 925 Palomar Airport Rd Carlsbad CA 92009-1116 Carlsbad CA 92009-1110 . .
*** 5 Printed ***
.
Carlsbad Properties Inc
520 S Virgil Ave Los Angeles C 90020-1405
Jean J Haidar 5900 Pasteur Ct 200 Carlsbad CA 92008-733C
Carlsbad Corporate Llc PO Box 34089 Las Vegas NV 89133-4089
)
Plaza De1 Norte Llc PO Box 1058 Cardiff By Th 92007-7058
Price Co The 999 Lake Dr Issaquah WA 98027-8990
Pricesmart Inc 4649 Morena Blvd San Diego CA 92117-3650
Konstantinos Manassakis 6030 Paseo De1 N Carlsbad CA 92009-1114
Jcm Tom Co 1524 Dorcas St San Diego CA 92110-1515
C B Ranch Enterprises
5600 Avenida Encinas 10
Carlsbad CA 9200.8i-4452
Stephen P Rockwell 5900 Pasteur Ct 200 Carlsbad CA 92008-7301
Plaza Delnorte Llc PO 30x iO58 Cardiff By -5-l 92007-7051
Paul & Peggy Hadley PO Box 12727
Palm Desert C 92255-2727
dS8
Brickell Enterprises In
3074 Deer Meadow Dr
Danville CA 94506
James & Dorothy Gaiser
3340 Ridgecrest Dr
Carlsbad CA 92008-2027
Ray & Barbara Winter PO Box 290 Dallas TX 75221-0290
H G Fenton Co 7220 Trade St San Diego CA 92112
Deo A & Thelma YaZ:-:A 5900 Pasteur CL 2c?C Carlsbad CA 922zg--: WM.
Four Sac Self-Storaae 5 2727 N Ceztral A\-e Phoenix AZ GOciG-ll;,'.
Paul h: P e3zv Hadlec - -4 PO Box 1272? palm 3eser: ;3 92255-z,;- - . .
Glasjar Funding Lp 14651 Dallas Pky 500 Dallas TX 75240-8807
Richard Williams PO Box 177 San Luis Rey 92068-0177
Carlbus Associates L P 5600 Avenida Encinas 10 Carlsbad CA 92008-4452
Pacific Sales Kitchen&B 2080 Washington Ave Torrance CA 90501-3421
Winter 1745 Rocky Rd Fullerton CA 92831-1233
U D C Homes Inc 10721 Treena St 200 San Diego CA 92131-1039
Legoland California Inc 1 Lego Dr Carlsbad CA 92008-4610
Occupant Occupant 800 Palomar Airport Rd 6118 Paseo De1 Norte Carlsbad CA 92008-4443 Carlsbad CA 92009-1116
Occupant 951 Falomar A:r-T,,-r-r F.2
Zarlsba'5 3 z"e7' -_. d--vL-"-,--
Occupant 6100 Paseo De1 Norte
Carlsbad CA 92009-1116
Occupant 925 Palomar Airport Rd Carl&ad CA 92cna-lllc -2
*** 5 Printed ***
A notice has been mailed to
all property owners/occupants
Signature: