HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-01-22; City Council; 16530; King's Fish HouseCITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL
AB# &,,530 TITLE:
MTG. I -aa-OJ CUP 01-06/CDP 01-18
KING’S FISH HOUSE
DEPT. PLN 4
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 200 a -0 38 , ADOPTING a Negative
Declaration and APPROVING CUP 01-06 and CDP 01-18 as recommended for adoption and
approval by the Planning Commission.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
Project application(s) To be Reviewed -
Approvals
Reviewed by and Administrative Final at Council
Commission
Final at Planning
Environmental Review
X Site Development Plan Amendment X Coastal Development Permit
X Conditional Use Permit
X
On December 19, 2001, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended
adoption of the Negative Declaration and approval of CUP 01-06 and CDP 01-18 and approved SDP
80-1 1 (D) for King’s Fish House (7-0 vote). The project site is located on the west side of Paseo Del
Norte, north of Palomar Airport Road and south of Car Country Drive, just north of Holiday Inn, in the
C-T-Q Zone and the CommercialNisitor Serving Overlay Zone and in Local Facilities Management
Zone 3.
The development proposal would allow for the construction of an 8,830 square foot restaurant. The
project is located in the CommercialNisitor Serving Overlay Zone and therefore requires approval of
a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) by the City Council. The project is also within the Mello II segment
of the Local Coastal Program and the City has permit authority of the Coastal Development Permit.
The Site Development Plan Amendment was to revise the Holiday Inn parking lot to accommodate
the restaurant and that action was final at the Planning Commission. The T-R (Travel-Recreation)
General Plan Land Use Designation supports this type of use along the freeway to serve the travel
and recreation needs of tourists, residents, and employees of business and industrial centers. As
summarized in the staff report, the project complies with all applicable development standards of the
C-T zone and CommercialNisitor Serving Overlay Zone with regard to parking, signage, building
height, setbacks, lighting, landscaping, and standards that apply specifically to restaurants. The
project has been designed in the “Alternative” architectural style and features high-quality design and
detailing consistent with the overlay zone requirements. The project was reviewed and supported by
the City Council and the Community Development Director at the conclusion of the pre-filing
xocess. The CUP and overlay zone findings for approval of the project can be made and are
Jutlined in detail in the staff report and resolutions.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
The proposed project has been reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
:CEQA). The initial study prepared in conjunction with the project determined that no significant
mpacts could be created as a result of the project. In consideration of the foregoing, a Negative
3eclaration was issued by the Planning Director on July 24, 2001.
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. b, 53O
FISCAL IMPACT:
All public facilities required to serve the project will be constructed prior to or concurrent with
development as mandated by Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 3. Since these
improvements will be constructed by the developer, no negative fiscal impacts will be incurred by the
City. The applicant will be responsible for frontage improvements along Paseo Del Norte.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATUS:
Local Facilities Management Plan
NIA Growth Control Point
3
NIA Special Facilities
NIA Net Density
EXHIBITS:
1, City Council Resolution No. Ada -0 38
2. Location Map
3. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5100, 5101 and 5102
4. Planning Commission Staff Report dated December 19, 2001
5. Excerpts of Planning Commission minutes dated December 19, 2001.
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
21
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2002-038
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A RESTAURANT ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE WEST SIDE OF PASEO DEL
NORTE, NORTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND SOUTH
OF CAR COUNTRY CARLSBAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 3
CASE NAME: KING'S FISH HOUSE
CASE NO.: CUP 01-OWCDP 01-18
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as
follows:
WHEREAS, on December 19, 2001. the Carlsbad Planning Commission held a
duly noticed public hearing to consider a proposed Negative Declaration, Conditional Use
Permit and Coastal Development Permit to allow for the development of a restaurant, and
adopted Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5100, 5101 and 5102 recommending to the City
Council that the Negative Declaration be adopted and that the Conditional Use Permit and
Coastal Development Permit be approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 22nd day of
JANUARY , 2002, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the
recommendation and heard all persons interested in or opposed to the Negative Declaration,
Conditional Use Permit, and Coastal Development Permit; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct
2. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the adoption of
the Negative Declaration and approval of Conditional Use Permit 01-06 and Coastal
Development Permit 01-18 are adopted and approved and that the findings and conditions of
the Planning Commission contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5100, 5101, and
5102 on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and
conditions of the City Council.
3. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council.
The Provisions of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Time Limits for Judicial
Review" shall apply:
1
1
-
4
c -
t
i
e
9
la
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“NOTICE TO APPLICANT”
“The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is
governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been
made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code
Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be
filed in the appropriate court no later than the ninetieth day following the
date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days
after the decision becomes final a request for the record of proceedings
accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the
estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time within which such
petition may be filed in court is extended to not latter than the thirtieth day
following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or
mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written
request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed
with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive,
Carlsbad, California 92008.”
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City o
Carlsbad on the 22nd day of JANUARY , 2002, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Finnila, Nygaard, Hall
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST: 4
(SEAL) 1
-2-
EXHIBIT 2
KING’S FISH HOUSE
CUP 01-OG/CDP 01-18
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. 5100
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO
CONSTRUCT A RESTAURANT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF PASEO DEL NORTE,
NORTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND SOUTH OF
CAR COUNTRY DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 3
CASE NAME: KING’S FISH HOUSE
CASE NO.: CUP 01-06/CDP Ol-l8/SDP 80-ll(D)
WHEREAS, King’s Seafood Company, “Developer,” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Carpenter’s Pension Trust
for Southern California, a California Corporation, “Owner,” described as
a portion of Parcel 2 of parcel map no. 11284, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to map thereof, filed in the Ofice of the County Recorder of
San Diego County, May 11, 1981 and a portion of Parcel 4 of
Carlsbad Tract No 92-07, in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof no.
13078, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego
County, December 28,1993
(“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 December, 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: d’
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
la
11
12
13
14
1s
16
17
18
1s
2c
21
22
22
24
25
2f
2;
2z
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration
according to Exhibit "ND" dated July 24, 2001, and "PII" dated July 18, 2001,
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1.
...
...
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 I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PC RES0 NO. 5100 -2- 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
5
1c
11
12
12
14
15
16
17
18
15
2c
21
22
2:
21
25
2t
2’
2
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of December 2001, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Dominguez,
Heineman, Nielsen, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JEFMN. SEGALL, chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. H&MILL%R
Planning Director
I PC RES0 NO. 5100 -3- 8
~ City of Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddresdLocation: West side of Paseo Del Norte, north of Palomar Airport Rd., south
of Car Country Drive and adjacent and east of Interstate 5.
Project Description: The project consists of constructing a 9052 square foot restaurant
with 139 surface parking spaces on two acres. Project also
includes the reconfiguration of the Holiday Inn northern parking
lot, street vacation (cul-de-sac bulb) of Anderson Way,
construction of a water retention basin for water quality purposes
and an adjustment plat.
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 Van Lynch in the Planning Department at
(760) 602-4613.
DATED: JULY 24,2001
CASE NO: CUP 01-06/CDP 01-18ISDP 80-ll(D)
CASE NAME: KING’S FISH HOUSE
PUBLISH DATE: JULY 24,2001
Planning Director
9
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
CASE NO: CUP 01-06iCDP 01-181 SDP 80-1 1(D)
DATE: July 18.2001
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: KING’S FISH HOUSE
2. APPLICANT: Gam Maveda
3. ADDRESSES AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 100 West Broadway. Suite 550, Long
Beach. CA 90802
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMI’lTED: May 3.2001
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of a 9052 sauare foot restaurant with 139 surface
parking soaces on two acres located on the west side of Paseo Del Norte, north of Palomar
Airport Rd.. south of Car Countrv Drive and adjacent and east of Interstate 5. Proiect also
bulb) of Anderson way, construction of a water retention basin and an adjustment olat.
includes the reconfieuration of the Holiday Inn northern oarking lot. street vacation (cul-de-sac
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Land Use and Planning TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources OUtilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
[XI Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96 /D
DETERMINATION.
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. An EIR is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Master Environmental
Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01),
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
7-/813 I
Date
Planning Director"&ignat&d Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96 Il
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
A 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 kom “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 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but 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).
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 I2
0 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
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 the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96 13
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Impact Significant Sign~ficant Impact
Potentially Less Than No
Incorporated
Mitigation Unless Impact
0 17151
0 ON
I. LAND USE AND PLANNPJG. Would the proposal
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
(Source #l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
landuses)?(#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
minority community) (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
established community (including a low-income or
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
populationprojections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 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 5.5-1 -
5.5-6)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Faultrupmre?(#l:Pgs5.1-1 -5.1-15,#2)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, # 2)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
e) Landslides ormudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
0 Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1-15, # 2)
5.1-1 - 5.1.15, # 2)
5.1-15, # 2)
g) Subsidence ofthe land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2)
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15, #2)
0
cl
cl om
0 17151
0 17
17 0 0151
0
0
om
ON
0
0
17
0 0
0
0
om om 17151 om
0 0 OH om
0 0 0
0 0 0
0151 om ON i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15, #2)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 ~ 5.2-11;# 3)
11)
5
o 0 OH
0
0
0151
UN 0
Rev. 03/28/96 /At
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 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 5.2-1 - 5.2-11)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11)
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-
11) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.2-1 - 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 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperaNre, or cause
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
VI. TRANSPORTATTON/CIRCULATION. Would the
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
proposal result in:
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
5.7-1 - 5.7-22)
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7-22)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7-22)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7-22)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7-22)
t) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus Nmouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterhome or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7-22)
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,
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
animals, and birds)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
6
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Slgnificant Imvact
Impact Unless lmpacr Mitigation
0
0 o
I7
0
0
Incorporated 0
0
0
0
0
0
[XI 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
[XI 0
0 0
0 0 o 17 o 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
OH
on
OH
OH
OH
OIXI
o[XI
Rev. 03/28/96 I5
Wetland habitat (e.& marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 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?
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 1 - 5.13-9)
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)
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
IX. HAZARDS, Would the proposal involve:
A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals orradiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -
5.10.1-5) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9- 15)
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 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 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 5.12.1-1 - (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-7)
XI1,UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
7
lmpact Unless lmpact
Mitigation
0 0 nIXI Incorporated
0 0 OIXI
0 om
0 0 om
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
IXI
[XI
El
CI 0 OISI
0 0 om
0
0 o[XI
Rev. 03/28/96 /:L
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b) Communications systems? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
e) Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
5.12.3-7)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
b) Have or demonstrate a negative aesthetic effect?
c) Createlightorglare?(#l:Pgs5.11-1-5.11-5)
5.11-1 -5.11-5)
(#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
10)
10)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
5.12.8-7)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal commnnity,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigat~on Incorporated 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
Significant Impact
LessThan lrio
Impact
om om om OH
om om om
om om om om
om
om
om
OH
8 Rev. 03128196 /7
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation Incorporated
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited. but cumulativelv considerable? 0 0 om
(“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 uroiects. and the effects of
probable future projects) ._ .
c) Does the uroiect have environmental effects which will n n n m
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
” U U U u
9 Rev. 03/28/96 /8
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
10 Rev. 03/28/96 19
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project consists of constructing a 9052 square foot restaurant with 139 surface parking
spaces on two acres located the west side of Paseo Del Norte, north of Palomar Airport Rd.,
south of Car Country Drive and adjacent and east of Interstate 5. Project also includes the
reconfiguration of the Holiday Inn northern parking lot, street vacation (cul-de-sac bulb) of
Anderson way, construction of a water retention basin for water quality purposes and an
adjustment plat. Access to the site will he provided via a driveway from Paseo Del Norte and
interconnecting driveways with the existing development to the south and future development to
the north.
The project site is relatively flat and has been previously graded and developed with the previous
alignment of Paseo Del Norte, which has since been realigned to the eastern side of the property.
All previous roadway surface improvements have been removed. The southerly portion of the
site is developed with a publicly dedicated cul-de-sac bulb and an overflow parking area for the
adjacent Holiday Inn. Improvements consist of asphalt paving, concrete curbs and drainage and
utility improvements. The site has adequate access to a public street and the cul-de-sac bulb is
not needed. The site is vegetated with grasses, forbs and a few ornamental trees. The site does
not contain any known sensitive habitat or species. No environmentally sensitive resources exist
on the previously graded site and all public facilities necessary to serve the development are
already in place. No significant adverse impacts to the environment are anticipated.
11 Rev. 03/28/96 do
11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
Air Quality
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the
San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
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 subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
TransportatiodCirculation
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate
to accommodate buildout 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 buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures
to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concuvent with need; 2) provisions to develop
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when
12 Rev. 03/28/96 21
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway
onto City streets creates impacts that are not withm the jurisdiction of the City to control. The
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been
incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
A MEIR may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the
filing of an application for a later project. The City is currently reviewing the 1994 MEIR to
determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects. Although the MEIR was
certified more than five years ago, the City’s preliminary review of its adequacy finds that no
substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was
certified. The only potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure at Palomar Airport
Rd. and El Camino Real, is in the process of being mitigated to below a level of significance.
Additionally, there is no new available information, whch was not known and could not have
been known at the time the MEIR was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to
review later projects.
111. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008,
(760) 602-4600.
1. Final Master Environmental ImDact Reuort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
2. Geotechnical Investigation, King’s Fish House and Lounge, Paseo Del Norte, Carlsbad.
3. Preliminary Hvdroloav and Hvdraulic Reuort for King’s Seafood Co. prepared by
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
__ CA prepared by Testing Engineers - San Diego, Inc, dated July 10,2001
Aquaterra Engineering Inc. dated July 5,2001.
13 Rev. 03/28/96 ad
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES
None
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITOFUNG PROGRAM
None
14 Rev. 03128196 23
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. 5101
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
CONSTRUCT A RESTAURANT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF PASEO DEL NORTE,
NORTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND SOUTH OF
CAR COUNTRY DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 3
CASE NAME: KING’S FISH HOUSE
CASE NO.: CUP 01 -06
WHEREAS, King’s Seafood Company, “Developer,” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Carpenter’s Pension Trust
for Southern California, a California Corporation, “Owner,” described as
A portion of Parcel 2 of parcel map no. 11284, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to map thereof, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of
San Diego County, May 11, 1981 and a portion of Parcel 4 of
Carlsbad Tract No 92-07, in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof no.
13078, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego
County, December 28,1993
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Conditional Use
Permit as shown on Exhibits “A” - “M” dated December 19, 2001, on file in the Carlsbad
Planning Department, KING’S FISH HOUSE - CUP 01-06, as provided by Chapter 21.42 and
21.208 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 19th day of December 2001,
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.
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 KING’S FISH HOUSE - CUP 01-06, based
on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, is
essentially in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, and
is not detrimental to existing uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the
proposed use is located, in that the proposed restaurant is a permitted use in the C-T
zone and Commercial Visitor-Serving Overlay and will provide a service for the
residential, tourist and business communities; it provides the required on-site
parking and has adequate traffic circulation; and project incorporates the required
development standards of the CommerciaWisitor Serving Overlay Zone to ensure
compatibility of the project with the community.
That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in
that the restaurant can fit within the 2.0 acre and meet the development standards
without the need for modifications or variances.
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 adequate building and landscape setbacks have been
provided. The project incorporates a service yard to enclose the restaurant service
area, trash enclosures, and storage. The building design is such that any roof-
mounted mechanical is screened from view. Future access points to the adjacent
property have been made to facilitate development of that property.
That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic
generated by the proposed use, in that the existing street system is adequate to
properly handle the 902 ADT generated by the development proposal.
That the proposed project is adequately designed to accommodate the high percentage of
visitor, tourist and shuttle budalternative transportation users anticipated given the
proposed use and site location within the overlay zone in that the on-site circulation
system has been adequately designed to accommodate the flow of traffic without
creating conflicts between uses. The project provides the required number of
parking spaces to accommodate the use. The project will also enter into a private
reciprocal access and parking agreement with the adjacent uses to the north and
south. A separate pedestrian walk has been provided from the public right-of-way
to the restaurant.
PC RES0 NO. 5101 -2- 25-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
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 in that the building has been
designed with an alternative architectural design, which will be compatible with the
other surrounding buildings. The building design, materials and colors proposed
represent a high quality of architectural design through the use of architectural
details and building forms which are complementary to the surrounding buildings
in the vicinity.
That the project complies with all development and design criteria of the overlay zone in
that the project meets or exceeds all of the development and design criteria of the
overlay zone including, but not limited to parking, signage, building height, building
setbacks, building design, and landscaping.
The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUF') for the
McClellan-Palomar Airport, dated April 1994, in that as conditioned the applicant shall
record a notice concerning aircraft noise. The project is compatible with the projected
noise levels of the CLUP; and, based on the noise/land use compatibility matrix of the
CLUP, the proposed land use is compatible with the airport, in that restaurants are
compatible uses within the 60 CNEL.
The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 3 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. Park-in-lieu fees are required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 20.44, and
will be collected prior to issuance of building permit.
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.
Consistent with Section 65402(a) of the California Planning and Zoning Law, the
location, purpose and extent of the street vacation of Andersen Way has been
submitted to the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission has determined that the entire street vacation of
Andersen Way is consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element policies for
streets, trafic control, and alternative modes of transportation in that; vacation of
the 900-foot long cul-de-sac will not preclude access to any property as only one
parcel is currently served by the cul-de-sac; Paseo Del Norte provides adequate
access to the properties fronting Paseo del Norte without the cul-de-sec; and the CUI-
PC RES0 NO. 5101 -3- d -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
de-sac is not needed to provide safe and efficient movement of people, goods, and
services within the City.
12. That the project is consistent with the City’s Landscape Manual (Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 14.28.020 and Landscape Manual Section I B).
13. 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 building
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
permit.
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.
Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Conditional Use Permit 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.
The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local
laws and regulations 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, (b)
City’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-
PC RES0 NO. 5101 -4- 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
I
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
6.
I.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
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. This obligation
survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City's
approval is not validated.
The Developer shall submit to the Planning Director 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 Carlsbad Unified 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 3 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to
that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
This approval is granted subject to the approval of CDP 01-06 and SDP SO-ll(D) and is
subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5102 and
5103 for the Coastal Development Permit and Site Development Plan Amendment.
This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
project within 24 months from the date ofproject approval.
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.
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 CommercialNisitor-Serving Overlay Zone, and to provide for the health, safety and
general welfare of the City.
This Conditional Use Permit is granted for a period of 10 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 5 years upon written application of the permittee
made no less than 90 days prior to the expiration date. The City Council 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
PC RES0 NO. 5101 -5- a8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
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 City Council may grant.
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
hrther 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 pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy
#17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section
5.09.030, and CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable
Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 3, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such
taxedfees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxedfees are not paid, this
approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.
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.
The 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
Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit by Resolutions No. 5101
and 5102 on the property. 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.
PC RES0 NO. 5101 -6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
la
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
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.
The Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property is subject to overflight,
sight and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palomar Airport, in a form meeting
the approval of the Planning Director and the City Attorney (see Noise Form #2 on file in
the Planning Department).
No outdoor storage of materials shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief.
When so required, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval of the Fire Chief and
the Planning Director of an Outdoor Storage Plan, and thereafter comply with the
approved plan.
Developer shall construct, install and stripe not less than the number of required
parlung spaces, as shown on Exhibit “A.”
Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site
within this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the City Engineer
for the proposed haul route.
Prior to issuance of any building permit, Developer shall comply with the requirements of
the City’s anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and when such a program is
formally established by the City.
FeedApreements
25. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for
recordation the City’s standard form Drainage Hold Harmless Agreement regarding
drainage across the adjacent property.
26. Developer shall cause property owner to execute, record and submit a recorded copy to
the City Engineer, a deed restriction on the property which relates to the proposed cross
lot drainage as shown on the site plan. The deed restriction document shall be in a form
acceptable to the City Engineer and shall:
A. Clearly delineate the limits of the drainage course;
B. State that the drainage course is to be maintained in perpetuity by the underlying
property owner; and
C. State that all future use of the property along the drainage course will not restrict,
impede, divert or otherwise alter drainage flows in a manner that will result in
damage to the underlying and adjacent properties or the creation of a public
nuisance.
27. Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, Developer shall
cause Owner to give written consent to the City Engineer to the annexation of the area.
PC RES0 NO. 5101 -7- 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
shown within the boundaries of the subdivision into the existing City of Carlsbad Street
Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1, on a form provided by the City Engineer.
Grading
28. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the site
plan, a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall apply for and obtain a
grading permit from the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for the
project.
Dedications/ImDrovements
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
Developer shall cause Owner to execute a covenant of easement for private drainage
purposes as shown on the site plan the obligation to execute and record the covenant of
easement shall be shown and recording information called out on the site plan.
Developer shall provide City Engineer with proof of recordation prior to issuance of
building permit.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit or any demolition of public improvements
within City right-of-way, Developer shall apply for, process, and receive approval
for a street vacation for that portion of Andersen Way as shown on the site plan and
preliminary grading plans. Said vacation shall be processed as a General Street
Vacation in accordance with the Municipal Code and the California Street and
Highway Codes.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit or building permit, Developer shall prepare,
process and receive approval of a lot line adjustment so the parcels are reconfigured
as shown on the site plan and preliminary grading plan.
Developer shall provide for or install the necessary drainage infrastructure as shown on
the site plan prior to or concurrent with any grading or building permit. Developer shall
prepare and record the necessary easements required to encompass these drainage
improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Developer shall execute and record a City standard Development Improvement
Agreement to install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, public
improvements shown on the site plan and the following improvements including, but not
limited to paving, base, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, medians, signing and striping,
traffic control, grading, clearing and grubbing, undergrounding or relocation of utilities,
sewer, water, fire hydrants, street lights, retaining walls and reclaimed water, all
constructed to City Standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The Developer
shall:
A. Abandon the existing 12-inch ACP waterline traversing the site. The existing
line shall be replaced with a new 12-inch PVC waterline installed along the
frontage of Paseo Del Norte.
B. Relocate all the necessary fire hydrants and necessary appurtenances.
Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 18 months of approval of the
development improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement.
PC RES0 NO. 5101 -8- s"/
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
34.
35.
36.
37.
Developer shall have the entire drainage system designed, submitted to and approved by
the City Engineer, to ensure that runoff resulting from 10-year frequency storms of 6
hours and 24 hours duration under developed conditions, are equal to or less than the
runoff from a storm of the same frequency and duration under existing developed
conditions. Both 6 hour and 24 hour storm durations shall be analyzed to determine the
detention basin capacities necessary to accomplish the desired results.
Developer shall perform the necessary maintenance on the detention basin as
proposed on the site plan. The basin characteristics shall be maintained so that it's
ability to reduce peak storm run-off is maintained.
Developer shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit, latest version. Developer shall provide
improvements constructed pursuant to best management practices as referenced in the
"California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook" to reduce surface
pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such
improvements shall be submitted to and subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
Said plans shall include but not be limited to notifjmg prospective owners and tenants of
the following:
A. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with
established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and
hazardous waste products.
B. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil,
antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such
fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain
or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides,
herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet
Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective
containers.
C. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants
when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements.
Prior to the issuance of grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first,
Developer shall submit for City approval a "Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP)." The SWPPP shall be in compliance with current requirements and
provisions established by the San Diego Region of the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board. The SWPPP shall address measures to reduce to the
maximum extent possible storm water pollutant runoff at both construction and
post-construction phases of the project. At a minimum, the Plan shall:
A. Identify existing and post-development on-site pollutants.
B. Recommend source control Best Management Practices (BMPs) to filter said
pollutants.
C. Establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up.
Special considerations and effort shall be applied to employee and customer
PC RES0 NO. 5101 -9- 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
I
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2s
26
27
28
education on the proper procedures for handling clean up and disposal of
pollutants.
D. Ensure long-term maintenance of all post construct BMPs in perpetuity.
E. Identify how post-development runoff rates and velocities from the site will
not exceed the pre-development runoff rates and velocities for a 10-year 6-
hour event.
Carlsbad Municipal Water District:
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
Prior to building permit or grading permit issuance, whichever occurs first Developer
shall have design, apply for and obtain approval of the City Engineer, for the structural
section for the access aisles with a traffic index of 5.0 in accordance with City Standards
due to truck access through the parking area and/or aisles with an ADT greater than 500.
The structural pavement design of the aisle ways shall be submitted together with
required R-value soil test information and approved by the City Engineer as part of the
building or grading plan review whichever occurs first.
Prior to approval of improvement plans, Developer shall meet with the Fire Marshal to
determine if additional fire protection measures (fire flows, fire hydrant locations,
building sprinklers) are required to serve the project. Fire hydrants, if required, shall be
considered public improvements and shall be served by public water mains to the
satisfaction of the District Engineer.
The Developer shall design and construct public facilities within public right-of-way or
within minimum 20-feet wide easements granted to the District or the City of Carlsbad.
At the discretion of the District Engineer, wider easements may be required for adequate
maintenance, access and/or joint utility purposes.
Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall pay all fees, deposits, and charges
for connection to public facilities. Developer shall pay the San Diego County Water
Authoritv capacity charge(s) prior to issuance of Building Permits.
The Developer shall design landscape and irrigation plans utilizing recycled water as a
source. Said plans shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the District Engineer.
The Developer shall install potable water and recycled water services and meters at a
location approved by the District Engineer. The locations of said services shall be
reflected on public improvement plans.
The Developer shall install sewer laterals and clean-outs at a location approved by the
District Engineer. The locations of sewer laterals shall be reflected on public
improvement plans.
The Developer shall design and construct public water facilities substantially as shown on
the Site Plan to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. Proposed public facilities shall be
reflected on public improvement plans.
This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be
issued for the development of the subject property, unless the District Engineer has
PC RES0 NO. 5101 -10- +' 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
determined that adequate water and sewer facilities are available at the time of
occupancy. A note to this effect shall be placed on the Final Map, as non-mapping data.
Standard Code Reminders:
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
The Developer shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section
20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the
Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building
permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.
The project shall comply with the latest non-residential disabled access requirements
pursuant to Title 24 of the State Building Code.
Premise identification (addresses) shall be provided consistent with Carlsbad Municipal
Code Section 18.04.320.
Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance
with the Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.208.100(B) and shall require review and
approval of the Planning Director prior to installation of such signs.
Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to
prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance
with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 15.16 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
NOTICE
Please take NOTICE that approval of your’ project includes the “imposition” of fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as
“feedexactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these feeskxactions. 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 RES0 NO. 5101 -1 1- 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of December by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Dominguez,
Heineman, Nielsen, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: m JEFFRE . GALL, Chairperson cmsdh PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
PC RES0 NO. 5101 -12- 3 5/
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5102
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO
CONSTRUCT A RESTAURANT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF PASEO DEL NORTE,
NORTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND SOUTH OF
CAR COUNTRY DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 3
CASE NAME: KING’S FISH HOUSE
CASE NO.: CDP 01-18
WHEREAS, King’s Seafood Company, “Developer,” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Carpenter’s Pension Trust
for Southern California, a California Corporation, “Owner,” described as
A portion of Parcel 2 of parcel map no. 11284, in the City of
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according
to map thereof, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of
San Diego County, May 11,1981 and a portion of Parcel 4 of
Carlsbad Tract No 92-07, in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof no.
13078, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego
County, December 28,1993
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coast:
Development Permit as shown on Exhibits “A” - “M” dated December 19,2001, on file in the
Planning Department, KING’S FISH HOUSE - CDP 01-18, as provided by Chapter
21.201.040 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 19th day of December 2001,
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 Coastal Development Permit.
34’
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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 KING’S FISH HOUSE - CDP 01-18 based
on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
That the proposed development is in conformance with the Mello I1 segment of the
Certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) and all applicable policies in that the project’s
use is consistent with the Travel Services (TS) LCP land use designation; no prime
agricultural lands exist on or near the site; no impacts will occur to environmentally
sensitive habitats; no coastal access is or will be needed through or adjacent to the
project site; erosion will be controlled by grading in conformance with the City’s
Standards; grading will be restricted to the summer season; the site contains no
wetlands or dual criteria slopes; does not obstruct views of the coastline as seen
from public lands or the public right-of-way or otherwise damage the visual beauty
of the coastal zone; and no significant view points are on or near the site.
The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3
of the Coastal Act in that the site is located on the east side of the first public street
and no coastal access areas or water-oriented recreational activities exist on or near
the project 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 provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection
Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.03 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that the project will
adhere to the City’s Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan
and Grading Ordinance to avoid increased runoff and soil erosion, no steep slopes
or native vegetation is located on the subject property and the site is not located in
an area prone to landslides, or susceptible to accelerated erosion, floods or
liquefaction.
Conditions:
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to building
permit issuance.
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 furfher condition issuance of all
future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy
PC RES0 NO. 5102 -2- 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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 Coastal Development Permit.
2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
and modifications to the Coastal Development Permit 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/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 Coastal Development Permit,
(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. This obligation
survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City’s
approval is not validated.
4. This approval is granted subject to the approval of CUP 01-06 and SDP 80-11@) and is
subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5101 and
5103 for those other approvals.
5. 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 21.201.210 ofthe Zoning Ordinance.
6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall apply for and obtain a
grading permit issued by the City Engineer.
7. If a grading permit is required, all grading activities shall be planned in units that can be
completed by October 1st. Grading activities shall be limited to the “dry season”, April
1st to October 1st of each year. Grading activities may be extended to November 15th
upon written approval of the City Engineer and only if all erosion control measures are in
place by October 1st.
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
PC RES0 NO. 5102 -3- 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
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 feesiexactions
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 feeskxactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously othenvise
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 December 2001, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Dominguez,
Heineman, Nielsen, and Trigas
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: m . SEGALL, Chaimerson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5102 -4-
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department EXHIBIT 4
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application complete date: October 4, 2001
P.C. AGENDA OF: December 19,2001 Project Planner: Van Lynch
Project Engineer: Jeremy Riddle
SUBJECT: CUP 01-06/CDP Ol-lS/SDP SO-ll(D) - KING’S FISH HOUSE - Request for
the recommendation of adoption of a Negative Declaration and the
recommendation of approval for a Conditional Use Permit and Coastal
Development Permit and the approval of a Site Development Plan Amendment to
construct a 8,830 square foot restaurant on a 2.0 acre site located on the west side
of Paseo Del Norte, north of Palomar Airport Road and south of Car Country
Drive in the Coastal Zone and Local Facilities Management Zone 3.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5100, 5101, and
5102 RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration and RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF CUP 01-06 and CDP 01-18 and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution
No. 5103, APPROVING SDP 80-ll(D), based on the findings and subject to the conditions
contained therein.
11. INTRODUCTION
These applications propose developing an 8,830 square foot restaurant and to amend the site
development plan of the Holiday Inn (Andersen’s) site located on Paseo Del Norte, north of
Palomar Airport Road. The proposed restaurant land use is permitted by the Commercial -
Tourist Zone, Qualified Development Overlay Zone (C-T-Q) for the property, subject to the
approval of a Site Development Plan. Because the site is located within the CommerciaWisitor-
Serving Overlay Zone, the Conditional Use Permit process replaces the Site Development Plan
permit. The property is located within the Mello I1 Segment of the Local Coastal Program
requiring the approval of a Coastal Development Permit. The Site Development Plan
amendment is to reconfigure the existing parking lot for the Holiday Inn. The project is in
compliance with all city requirements.
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission recommend approval of a Conditional
Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit and approve a Site Development Plan Amendment
for the King’s Fish House project. The 2.0-acre project site is located adjacent and west of Paseo
Del Norte, north of Palomar Airport Road and south of Car Country Drive. The site is north of,
and adjacent to, Holiday Inn. The project consists of a single-story restaurant totaling 8,830
square feet, including outdoor patios. Parking will be provided at-grade surrounding the building
with 139 parking spaces provided. A covered outdoor dining patio and lounge patio are provided
CW 01-06KDP 01-18ISDP 80-ll(D) -KING’S FISH HOUSE
December 19,2001
on the street side of the building. A hlly enclosed service yard with trash receptacles is located
on the west side of the building, which fronts onto Interstate 5.
A Site Development Plan is required for the revision to the Holiday Inn site, The northerly
property line of the Holiday Inn site is being adjusted south to enable the creation of a parcel for
the new restaurant. As a result, the northerly portion of the existing Holiday Inn parking must be
relocated. The proposed location for the new parking area is an area created by the previous
realignment of Paseo Del Norte. Paseo Del Norte used to swing to the west just past the Holiday
Inn to almost touch the 1-5 right-of-way. The road was realigned to the east, at its present
location, which left a triangular parcel of land in front of the Holiday Inn. The new parking
configuration will take advantage of this area. There is a net increase of four parking spaces for
the Holiday Inn site from 421 to 425. The new parking area will maintain the existing 20-foot
parking landscape setback.
Access to the site is via a new driveway off Paseo Del Norte. An access drive is also proposed to
interconnect the site with Holiday Inn. Two future access points are provided on the north side
of the project to provide future access to the adjacent vacant site. The existing improved cul-de-
sac bulb off Paseo Del Norte will be vacated and removed.
The building is “vintage Americana” to reflect the look of old fisheries with red brick and
wrought iron exterior finishes. The design incorporates brick and metal cornices, faux brick
arched windows with wood shutters, and faux copper downspouts. On the front of the building
is an outdoor dining patio. The patio area is covered with a standing seam metal roof painted
black supported by decorative metal columns with decorative metal brackets. A decorative metal
fence encloses the patio. The east elevation (Holiday Inn) uses a brick veneer and stucco finish.
The standing seam roof on this elevation is silver colored. The entry is wood paneled with wood
molding.
The project site is relatively flat and does not have any physical or environmental constraints. A
portion of the site has been previously developed as the original alignment of Paseo Del Norte
and then as extra parking for Anderson’s and a public street, which is to be removed. The
project incorporates a storm water detention basin in the northwest comer to address water
quality concerns. The finish floor elevation of the building is proposed at 68 feet above mean sea
level (MSL). The elevation of the freeway adjacent is 55 feet MSL. The proposed grading for
the site is balanced with no import or export of soil material.
The following table lists the general plan, zoning and existing land use for the site and adjacent
properties:
CUP 01-06/CDP O1-18/SDP 80-1 1@) - KING’S FISH HOUSE
December 19,2001
Paze 3
- Qualified Overlay/
CommerciaWisitor-
Applicable Regulations
The proposed project is subject to the following plans, ordinances and standards as analyzed
within the following section of this staff report:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
IV.
Travelkcreation (T-R) General Plan Land Use Designation;
Commercial-Tourist, Qualified Development Overlay Zone (C-T-Q);
Conditional Use Permit findings and findings pursuant to the CommerciaWisitor-
Serving Overlay, Chapter 21.208.1 10;
Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport;
Mello I1 Segment of the Local Coastal Program, the Coastal Agricultural Overlay Zone -
Carlsbad Municipal Code, Chapter 21.202 and the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay
Zone - Carlsbad Municipal Code, Chapter 21.203; and
Growth Management Ordinance (Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 3).
ANALYSIS
The recommendation of approval for this project was developed by analyzing the project’s
consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. Therefore, this section will
cover the project’s compliance with each of the regulations listed above in the order in which
they are presented.
CUP 01-06/CDP 01-18ISDP 80-1 I@) -KING’S FISH HOUSE
December 19,2001
Page 4
A. General Plan
The General Plan designation for the project site is TraveVRecreation (T-R). The project
complies with all elements of the General Plan as illustrated in the table below:
GENERAL PLA
ELEMENT I USE.
CLASSIFICATION,
GOAL, OBJECTIVE
OR PROGRAM
Land Use Development area is
designated as T-R
Circulation New development
shall dedicate and
improve all public
right-of-way for
circulation facilities
needed to serve
development
Noise Utilize noise
standards contained in
the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan for
Palomar Airport
Open Space & To control storm
Conservation water pollutants.
COMPLIANCE
PROPOSED USES & IMPROVEMENTS
Restaurant use
proposed
Roadway
improvements in the
form of curb, gutter,
sidewalk, and
streetlights exist.
The project is a
compatible use within
the 60-65 CNEL with
no mitigation required
for indoor/outdoor
uses.
Provide a detention
basin for water quality
management.
COMPLY?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
The project also includes the vacation of the existing cul-de-sac street located at the northern end
of the hotel site, which is referred to as Andersen Way. The cul-de-sac is approximately 900 feet
long and currently provides access to the Holiday Inn parking lot. The removal of the cul-de-sac
will not preclude access to any other properties. Adequate vehicular circulation will be provided
in the redesign of the Holiday Inn parking area as a loop drive. Additional access will be
available through the Fish House parking lot via a private reciprocal access and parking
agreement.
B. C-T-Q and CommerciaWisitor-Serving Overlay Zoning Regulations
The development area of the project site is zoned Commercial-Tourist, Qualified Development
Overlay Zone (C-T-Q). The project site is also located within the CommercialNisitor-Serving
(CVS) Overlay Zone. The CVS Overlay zone contains the development standards for projects
within the overlay and supercedes those of the underlying zone. In addition, the requirement to
process a Site Development Plan is superceded because of the Qualified Development Overlay
Zone. The Conditional Use Permit findings and the CVS findings are discussed further in this
report.
CUP 01-06/CDP 01-18ISDP 80-1 1(D) - KING’S FISH HOUSE
December 19,2001
Page 5
The project complies with all requirements of the C-T and CVS Overlay Zone as demonstrated in
the following table:
C-T Z(
STANDARD
Permitted Use
Parking
Signs
Building Height
Setbacks
Decorative paving entry
Monument sign landscaping
Landscaping
(E / CVS OVERLAY COMP:
REQUIRED
CommerciaWisitor-Serving
use (i.e. Restaurant)
139 spaces
Complement overall building
style
35 ft. / 45 ft. for allowed
protrusions
Roof top equipment/ structural
features screened
Front - 30 feet/ 20 landscaped
Interior Side Yard - 10 A./ 10
A. landscaped
Rear Yard - 30 ft./ 10 ft.
landscaped
900 sq ft minimum
One paldsix birds of
paradisdagapanthus
1 tree /six parking spaces (23
required)
15 gal minimum
Screening of parking area.
Screened loading, trash, and
delivery areas.
101 sq. ft.
[ANCE
PROPOSED
Restaurant
139 spaces
Proposed signs complement
101 sq. ft.
building
25 ft.
Roof mounted equipment
screened from view by
parapets
89.5 ft. / 22.5 ft: landscaped
81 ft. / 10 ft. - landscaped
57 ft. / 12.5 ft. landscaped
1170 sq. ft.
Landscaping complies with
CVS Overlay
35 provided (I/ four parking
spaces)
15 gal to 48 inch box
Landscape berm and screen
hedge. Enclosed loading,
delivery and trash area.
The CVS Overlay allows two primary architectural styles. One is the Village Architectural style
and the other is the Contemporary Southwest Architectural style. An alternative architectural
style may be proposed which is what the King’s Fish House has done. The alternative
architectural style may accommodate a reasonable version of the user’s corporate architectural
style, provided that the elements do not dominate the building design so as to create
incompatibility in the area. Although the design incorporates the corporate architecture, the
building does not have significant features that would cause it to stand out or be incompatible
with the surrounding buildings. The architecture, as described earlier, is “vintage Americana.”
The building is rectangular in shape with a brick veneer, with architectural features and
enhancements, and a standing seam metal dining patio cover. The materials used, such as brick
and wood, are high quality materials that enhance the building image. The dark red brick, black
CUP 01-06/CDP Ol-lUSDP 80-1 1(D) - KING'S FISH HOUSE
December 19,2001
Page 6
metal canopy, and accent colors are appropriate for the building materials and building style.
Pursuant to the CVS overlay, the applicant had submitted a preliminary review to review the site
design and alternative architectural design. The project was reviewed and supported by the City
Council and the enforcement official (Community Development Director) at the conclusion of
the pre-filing process.
C. Conditional Use Permit findings and findings pursuant to the CommerciaWisitor-
Serving Overlay
Commercial projects located within the CommerciaWisitor Serving Overlay Zone require
approval of a conditional use permit by the City Council. The four findings for conditional use
permit and the required findings for the CVS Overlay Zone are summarized in this section.
1. That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community,
is essentially in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan,
and is not detrimental to existing uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the
proposed use is located.
The proposed restaurant is a permitted use in the C-T zone and CVS Overlay and will
provide a service for the residential, tourist and business communities. The proposed
restaurant is not detrimental to the existing commercial and hotel uses in that it provides the
required on-site parking and has adequate traffic circulation. The project incorporates the
required development standards of the CommercialNisitor Serving Overlay Zone to ensure
compatibility of the project with the community.
2. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use.
The 2.0 acre site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use in that the
restaurant can fit within the proposed development area without the need for any
development standard modifications.
3. That all the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to
adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be
provided and maintained.
The project complies with all of the development standards and parking requirements of the
C-T zone and CVS Overlay Zone. Adequate building and landscape setbacks have been
provided. The project incorporates a service yard to enclose the restaurant service area, trash
enclosures, and storage. The building design is such that any roof-mounted mechanical
equipment is screened from view. Future access points to the adjacent property have been
made to facilitate development of that property.
4. That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all
trafflc generated by the proposed use.
A traffic study' was submitted for the development proposal, which indicates that the
restaurant would generate approximately 902 Average Daily Trips (ADT). The proposed
project will add a minimal amount of traffic to this location in the PM peak hour (96 ADT).
45
CUP 01-06KDP 01-18ISDP 80-ll(D) - KING’S FISH HOUSE
December 19,2001
The increase in vehicle trips has been analyzed and based on City traffic studies and the
proposed Palomar Airport Corridor Improvements, the Engineering Department has found
that the proposed use will not reduce the level of service of the surrounding roadways and
key intersections to an unacceptable level and that the existing street system is adequate to
properly handle the 902 ADT generated by the development proposal.
The CommerciaWisitor Serving Overlay Zone requires three additional findings as follows:
5. That the proposed project is adequately designed to accommodate the high percentage
of visitor, tourist, and shuttle bus/alternative transportation users anticipated given the
proposed use and site location within the overlay zone.
The on-site circulation system has been adequately designed to accommodate the flow of
traffic without creating conflicts between uses. The project provides the required number of
parking spaces to accommodate the use. The project will also enter into a private reciprocal
access and parking agreement with the adjacent uses to the north and south. A separate
pedestrian walk has been provided from the public right-of-way to the restaurant.
6. That the building form, building colors and building materials combine to provide an
architectural style of development that will add to the objective of high quality
architecture and building design within the overlay zone.
The building has been designed with an alternative architectural design, which will be
compatible with the other surrounding buildings. The building design, materials and colors
proposed represent a high quality of architectural design through the use of architectural
details and building forms which are complementary to the surrounding buildings in the
vicinity.
7. That the project complies with all development and design criteria of the overlay zone.
As outlined previously in the zoning compliance table above, the project meets or exceeds all
of the development and design criteria of the overlay zone including, but not limited to
parking, signage, building height, building setbacks, building design, and landscaping.
D. Site Development Plan Amendment
The amendment to reconfigure the parking area of the Holiday Inn (Andersen’s) is not subject to
the CVS Overlay as it is an existing development being modified as follows; does not change
any of the existing of uses; does not invoke a higher parking standard; or change the square
footage of any building. The proposal is consistent with existing uses allowed by the original
site development plan. The revision relocates and adds four parking spaces. The parking ratios
applied to the existing uses would require 366 parking spaces. The parking provided, after
modification, is 425 parking spaces, which is 59 spaces over the required amount.
The parking lot redesign provides adequate traffic circulation as it still provides through
circulation around the hotel site. Through access is provided to the restaurant site, which is
similar to the previous traffic circulation pattern. The new parking lot design incorporates ten-
foot landscaped setbacks to match the existing and adjacent parking areas. The balance of
CUP 01-06/CDP 01-18ISDP 80-1 1(D) -KING’S FISH HOUSE
December 19,2001
Page 8
parking demand is not disrupted since the parking area being relocated is remote and not
frequently used.
E. Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan - Palomar Airport
The project site is located approximately two miles west of the airport and within the Airport
Influence Area for McClellan - Palomar Airport. The site is inside the 60 Community Noise
Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise contour. The airport land use plan identifies the restaurant use
as being compatible within the 60 CNEL. The project was sent to the Airport Manager in
addition to SANDAG staff. The project is in conformance with the airport land use plan.
F. Mello I1 Segment of the Local Coastal Program
As designed, the project is consistent with the relevant policies of the Mello I1 Segment of the
Local Coastal Program (LCP). The restaurant is an appropriate use with the LCP land use
designation of Travel Service. The site is currently partially developed as a parking lot and
graded area. No environmentally sensitive habitats exist on or adjacent to the site. Because the
proposal includes grading, the provisions contained in the Mello I1 land use policies prohibiting
grading during the winter months (October 1st - April 1st) are included as conditions of approval.
Since the project is located one half mile from the ocean, no shoreline development regulations
apply. No scenic resources exist on or near the site. The project does not impact any non-prime
coastal agricultural land. Therefore, the proposed restaurant is consistent with the Mello I1 land
use policies and the applicable implementing ordinances.
G. Growth Management Ordinance (LFMP Zone 5)
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 3 in the northwest
quadrant. The impacts on public facilities created by this project and compliance with the
adopted performance standards aie summarized as follows:
FACILITY IMPACTS COMPLIANCE WITH
City Administration N/A Yes
Library N/A Yes
Wastewater Treatment 4.9 EDU Yes
STANDARDS
Parks Yes N/A
Drainage Basin B
Yes Payment of non-residential Schools
Yes N/A Open Space
Yes Station 4 Fire
Yes 902 ADT Circulation
Yes
school fee at bldg. permit
issuance
Sewer Collection System
Water Distribution System
Yes 4.9 EDU
Yes 1078 Gallons/dy
CUP 01-06/CDP 01-18ISDP 80-ll(D) -KING’S FISH HOUSE
December 19,2001
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project has been reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). Staff prepared an initial study for the project and concluded that no potentially
significant impacts would result with the implementation of the project. The project is within
the scope of the City’s Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR) which was utilized to
address the project’s cumulative air quality and circulation impacts. A MEIR may not be used
to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the filing of an application for
a later project. The City is currently reviewing the 1994 MEIR to determine whether it is still
adequate to review subsequent projects. Although the MEIR was certified more than five years
ago, the City’s preliminary review of its adequacy finds that no substantial changes have
occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was certified. The only
potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure at Palomar Airport Rd. and El Camino
Real has been mitigated to below a level of significance with new roadway improvements.
Additionally, there is no new available information, which was not known and could not have
been known at the time the MEIR was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to
review later projects. In consideration of the foregoing, on July 24, 2001 the Planning Director
issued a Negative Declaration for the proposed project.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
I.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5100 (Neg. Dec)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5101 (CUP)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5 102 (CDP)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5103 (SDP)
Location Map
Background Data Sheet
Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
Disclosure Statements
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1964, dated May 26, 1982
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2351, dated September 26, 1984
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3463, dated November 18, 1992
Reduced Exhibits
Full Size Exhibits “A” - “M’, dated December 19,2001
vL:cs:mh
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: CW 01-06 / CDP 01-18 / SDP 80-ll(D)
CASE NAME: KING’S FISH HOUSE
APPLICANT: KING’S SEAFOOD COMPANY
REQUEST AND LOCATION: An 8.830 square foot restaurant located on the west side of
Paseo Del Norte. north of Palomar Airport Road and south of Car Country Drive
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: a portion of Parcel 2 of parcel map no. 11284, in the City of
Carlsbad. County of San Diego. State of California, according to map thereof. filed in the Office
of the County Recorder of San Diego County, May 11. 1981 and a portion of Parcel 4 of
Carlsbad Tract No 92-07. in the Citv of Carlsbad. County of San Diego, State of California,
according to map thereof no. 13078, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego
County. December 28. 1993
APN: 211-021-04 and -23 Acres: 2.0 Proposed No. of LotsKJnits: 1
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: Travel-Recreation Commercial (T-R)
Density Allowed: n/a Density Proposed: n/a
Existing Zone: Commercial-Tourist-Qualified Development Overlay Zone and
Commercial Visitor/Serving Overlay Zone Proposed Zone: no change
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
Zoning General Plan
Site C-T-Q T-R
North C-T-Q T-R
South C-T-Q T-R
East C-2-Q Regional commercial
West Transportation Conidor Transportation Conidor
Current Land Use
ParkingNacant
Vacant
Hotel/Commercial
Commercial
Interstate 5
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 4.9 EDU
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Negative Declaration, issued Julv 24. 2001
0 Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
0 Other,
49
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE. NAME AND NO: KING’S FISH HOUSE - CUP 01-06 I CDP 01-18 I SDP SO-ll(D)
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 2 GENERAL PLAN: TravellRecreation
Commercial
ZONING: Commercial Tourist - Oualified Overlay/ Commercial Visitor/Serving Overlav
DEVELOPER’S NAME: King’s Seafood Company
ADDRESS: 100 W. Broadway, #550, Long Beach, CA 90802
PHONE NO.: (562) - 437-8824 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 211-021-04123
QUANTlTY OF LAND USEDEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 8,830 Sq Ft
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: ASAP
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = N/A
Library: Demand in Square Footage = N/A
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 4.9 EDU
Park: Demand in Acreage = NIA
Drainage: Demand in CFS = 12.2
Identify Drainage Basin = B
Circulation: Demand in ADT = 902
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 4
Open Space: Acreage Provided = N/A
Schools: Carlsbad N/A
Sewer: Demands in EDU 4.9
Water: Demand in GPD = 1078
The project does not impact the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
- Citv of Carlsbad
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant's statement or disclosure of cam ounershlp Interests on ali applications ~hzn wit rcqulrc
discrenonary actlon on the pan of the City Council or any appolnred Board. Commlsslon or Commlnee
The followtng lnformation ;rMlrsT be disclosed at the time of applicatlon submlrml. Your pro.lei1 cannol
be revlewed until this mformatlon 1s completed. Please pnnt. ..
Note: Perron is defied as “Any iodividupl, firm co-parmmhip. joint venture, association. social club. fraternal
organization, corporation. estate, rmss receiver. syndicate. in this and any other couny. ciy and counr).. ctn municipality, disuict OT other political subdivision or any other goup or cornbinanon acnng as a unit.”
Agents may sip hs document; however, rhe legal name and endry of the applicant and propep owner must be provided blow.
1. APPLICAhT (Not the applicant’s agent)
Provide the QDMPLETE. LEG& names and addresses of persons having a financial
interest in the application. If the applicant includes a cornoratlon or narmership. include the
names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO
INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE TKAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-
APPLICABLE (N/A) IN “E SPACE BELOW If a publiclv-owed corooration, include the
.names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if
necessary.)
Person k5‘ c~ corp/pan +.-.C--J dEG7Aoa GO.
Titlep.lz-L-“----3c
Address /& /S*aPada~ Address
, ,.L
1 -. OWNER (Not the owner’s agent)
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALI. 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
cornoration or narmershig, 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 @/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-
owned cornoration, Include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate
page may be a@ched if necessary.) I
’- Person 5 @/ CorpPart
3. 3'05-PROFIT 'GAhTZATIOS OR TRLST
If any person identlfied pursuanr to (1 or (2) above IS a nonurofir oreanm!IoI: or 2 72~:. ::<: :::.
names and addresses of person seming as an officer or direclor of rnc mr.-xL>!-::
organization or as trustee or benefician of the.
Non ProficTrust Non RofiiTmsr
Title Title
Address Address
-jJ, 4. Have you had more than $250 wonh of busmess rransacted wlth any member of CIQ srafi. Boards. Commlrsions, Committees and/or Council within the past rwelvc (12) months? 0 Yes @No If yes, please indicate pason(s):
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my howledge.
H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 Page 2 of 2 54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
1c
11
12
12
14
15
16
17
1E
19
2c
21
22
22
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION N0.1964
P. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SITE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO 80-ll(A), FOR A 150 UNIT MOTEL,
2 RESTAURANTS, GASOLINE STATION, CONVENIENCE STORE
AND RELATED COMMERCIAL SHOPS AND PERMITTING THE
PROJECT TO BE DEVELOPED IN PBASES OR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND PASEO DEL NORTE, ADJACENT
APPLICANT: PEA SOUP ANDERSEN'S TO INTERSTATE 5.
CASE NO: SDP-EO-ll(A)
WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the City
of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission: and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as
provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code: and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal code,
the Planning Commission did, on the 26th day of May, 1982,
consider said request on property described as:
A portion of Lot H of Rancho Agua Hedionda according to map thereof No. 823 filed in the office of the San Diego County Recorder, also know as assessor's parcel numbers 211-021-13
and 21 1-021-14
WHEREAS, at said 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 Site
Development Plan No. 80-ll(A).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOJ,VED 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 SDP-RO-ll(A), based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
////
////
53
I I
~ Findings
The site is physically suitable for the type and density and i
design of the development since the site is adequate in size and topography to accommodate the project and still meet all I
city regulations without any significant environmental
impacts.
The project is consistent with all city public facility pol-
icies and ordinances since:
a) The applicant has been allocated sufficient sewer hookups
for the project.
b) The applicant has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate condition to pay a public facilities fee Performance of that contract and payment of the fee will enable this body to find that public facilities will be
available concurrent with need as required by the General Plan.
c) All necessary public improvements have been provided or will be required as conditions of approval.
d) The Planning Commission has, by inclusion of an appropriat condition, insured that the project will not be approved unless the City Council finds that sewer service is
Commission has added a condition that building permits ma
available to serve the project. In addition, the Planning
determines that sewer service is available, and building
not be issued for the project unless the City Engineer
cannot occur within the project unless sewer service
remains available, the Planning Commission is satisfied
that the requirements of the public facilities element of
the General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to
sewer service for this project.
The environmental impacts of the proposed project were
addressed in conjunction with previously approved certified
environmental documents and therefore, the Planning Director filed a Notice of Prior Compliance.
The proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element and all other applicable elements of the General Plan.
The proposed development as conditioned is consistent with
surrounding development, both existing and future.
25 IIConditions
26 11) Approval is granted for SDP 80-11 (A), as shown on Exhibit "A",
dated May 26, 1982, Exhibit "C" dated August 25, 1980 and
and on file in the Planning Department. Development shall
conditions.
27 1 occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these 28
~
~ Exhibit "D" dated September 3, 1980, incorporated by reference
PC RES0 # 1964 -2-
This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be issued for development of the sub- 1
ject property unless the City Engineer determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of application for such i I sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of
occupancy.
This project is approved upon the express condition that the
Council Policy No. 17, dated August 29, 1979, on file with the applicant shall pay a public facilities fee as required by City
City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, and according
to the agreement executed by the applicant for payment of said
with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference. If
fee a copy of that agreement dated April 29, 1982, is on file
said fee is not paid as promised, this application will not be consistent with the General Plan and approval for this project shall be void.
The applicant shall prepare a reproducible mylar of the final
site plan incorporating the conditions contained herein. Said site plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permits.
The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigation plan which shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to occupancy of any buildings. Said plan shall
right-of-way to visually screen the project from the freeway, include dense landscaping along the entire Interstate 5
and dense landscaping and mounding along Paseo del Norte to
screen the parking areas from the street.
period, the applicant shall maintain passable vehicular access
In order to provide for fire protection during the construction
required fire flows shall be installed on and off site as re- to all buildings. In addition, adequate fire hydrants with
quired by the Fire Department.
The applicant shall install street trees to city specifications at 40 foot intervals along all public street frontages concurrent with street improvements. The variety of said trees shall be subject to the approval of the Parks and Recreation
Department.
Parking lot trees shall be a minimum of 15 gallon size.
Signs as shown on attached exhibits are specifically not
this development shall be designed in conformance with the approved as part of this application. Any signs proposed for
city's Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the Planning Department prior to installation of such signs.
Further, a uniform sign program for the development shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for its review and
approval prior to occupancy of any building.
- 28 '/PC RES0 # 1964
I1 .3-
3-K
I
10) All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and ! i
1: thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris.
4 3i
112.) 51
6
7
I
Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a 6 foot hiph masonry wall with gates pursuant to city standards. Location of said receptacles shall be approved by the Planning
Director.
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be
architecturally integrated and shielded from view and the
sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets to the
Director. satisfaction.of the Planning Department and Building
,13) Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all
i ordinances in effect at time of building permit issuance.
114) This approval shall become null and void if building permits
8, sections of the zoning ordinance and all other applicable city
91 I
10 are not issued for this project within two years from the date of project approval. i 11 I
12 and crosswalks to allow safe and adequate pedestrian access
13 from the parking area south of Avenue of the Flags to the Pea
Soup Andersen's Restaurant. The design and location of said walkways and crosswalks shall be subject to the Planning
Director's approval and shall be shown on the final site
development plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
15) The applicant shall provide clearly marked pedestrian walkways
16
" l~
16) The applicant shall provide passive recreational facilities
play area), landscaping and a meandering sidewalk in the area
(including but not limited to benches, gazebos and children's
located between the motel and the gourmet restaurant prior to
18 j final occupancy of the gourmet restaurant. The design of said facilities, landscaping and sidewalk shall be subject to the I! 19 11 Planning Director's approval prior to issuance of building
ii permits.
2o 11 17) The applicant shall provide five (5) tour bus parking stalls on-site prior to final occupancy of any buildings. Location and design of said stalls shall be subject to the Planning
Director's approval and shall be shown on the final site development plan prior to the issuance of building permits.
21
22
1
I
!
i 23
~ 18) Along Avenue of the Flags, the applicant shall realign the
24
~ I 25 !;
third median break from Paseo del NOKte 55 feet to the east so that it aligns with the exit driveway of the parking lot area located east and adjacent to the restaurants.
-4-
zed
with the
Parking shall not be allowed along Avenue of the Flags and
shall be painted red and posted with "NO Parking" sings prior I !
to final occupancy subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 1 I
An adequate method of screening the loading area shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of
building permits and shall be installed prior to occupancy.
The area shown on the plan for employee parking shall be used
exclusively for employees and shall be so marked and desig-
nated prior to occupancy.
The City Engineer and Planning Director shall have the discre-
such as turning radii, planter widths and locations, etc, to tion to make minor modifications to the on-site circulation,
improve traffic flow at the time that the final site plan is
reviewed.
The developer shall recieve the approval of the City Engineer for a site grading plan and obtain a grading permit prior to issuance of building permits.
,
Grading shall occur in accordance with an approved qrading and erosion control plan, city standards, and an approved soils
and geologic investigation report which shall include slope
stability calculations and construction specifications. All
exposed slopes shall be hydromulched or otherwise stabili prior to the issuance of building permits subject to the
approval of the City Engineer.
Drainage improvements shall be constructed in accordance
overall plan for grading to the satisfaction of the City an approved plan, and the work shall be coordinated with
Engineer.
Paseo del Norte shall be fully improved along the property frontage to city standards, from Palomar Airport Road to. Avenue of the Flags in conjunction with Phase 1 of the project (service station, convenience store and restaurant). The
improvements shall be based on a curb-to-curb width of 66 feet and shall include raised median islands 14 feet wide. All
remaining improvements on Paseo del Norte from Avenue of the
Phase 2 (motel and future restaurant) and shall have a curb Flags to Car Country shall be installed in conjuction with
width of 66 feet but no median island. The structural section
shall conform to city standards based on R-value tests. This work shall include any remedial measures necessary to correct any drainage or groundwater problems which may adversely
placement of any of the existing street sections which, in the affect the street and shall also include the removal and re-
opinion of the City Engineer is inadequate. The curb and gut-
deleted from the required improvements. The sidewalk on the ter and the sidewalk on the'east side of the street may be
'PC RES0 # 1964 - .5- 57
west side of the street shall be constructed concurrent with 1
the portion of the property being developed. i
The median islands shall be landscaped and adequate water and
electricity shall be provided to each island for this. Land- scaping shall be subject to the approval of the Parks and Rec- reation Director and shall also be subject to the approval of
the City Engineer to assure there will be no sight distance
problems. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with
the city to perpetually maintain the median landscaping.
of the street subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
Paseo del Norte shall be posted "No Parking" along both sides
Street lights shall be installed along Paseo del Norte to city standards concurrent with the street improvements. The lumi- naire shall be of the mission bell type.
Sidewalks and street lights shall be installed along the pro-
perty frontage and Palomar Airport Road to city standards prior to the final occupancy of any buildings. Any structural section within the Palomar Airport Road half street abutting
the applicant's property shall be removed and replaced if the City Engineer determines that the existing section is inade- quate.
The exit onto Palomar Airport Road shall be designed to permit
right turn exits only. The extra lane as shown on the site
plan shall be deleted. The developer shall be responsible for obtaining necessary Caltrans' approvals and an encroachment permit for work within the Caltrans' right-of-way. This work shall be included in the required improvement plans and bonds,
shall be constructed prior to final occupancy of any build- shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer, and
ings. This exit shall have a sign which reads: "Exit to 1-5
North Only". If this exit is not approved by Caltrans, no
exit will be permitted on Palomar Airport Road. Also, signing
and 1-5 south in a location subject to the approval of the shall be constructed directing traffic to Palomar Airport Road
Planning Director prior to final occupancy of any building.
The main "Avenue of the Flags" entrance shall be designed as a street-type entrance instead of two driveway approaches. It
outside edges of the entrances and a median island in the cen- shall have curb returns with a radius of 15 feet on the two
be provided. Landscaping within 20 feet of the distance of
ter. Wheelchair ramps and a concrete valley gutter shall also
quate sight distance. 250 feet north of this intersection in order to provide ade-
The entrance to the porte cochere at the motel shall be designed as a street-type entrance as described for the
"Avenue of the Flags" entrance.
-6-
3-8
1
2
5
4
6 "
6
7
E
s
1c
11
12
12
14
It
16
17
1E
19
2c
21
22
23
24
25
. 26
27
28
Improvement plans for all public irnporvements, driveway
entrances and median islands shall be prepared by a civil
engineer, submitted to and approved by the City Engineer and bonds shall be posted prior to the issuance of building permits.
The applicant shall agree to fund a study to be performed bv Caltrans to determine the feasibility of widening the Palomar Airport Bridge over Interstate 5. Said funding shall be paid to the city prior to issuance of a building permit.
The applicant shall provide a bus shelter on Paseo del Norte at a location to be approved by the North County Transit
District. This shelter shall be installed prior to any
occupancy. Should full width street improvements not be
provided adjacent to the bus shelter location.
required on Paseo del Norte, a bus turnout shall also be
These conditions supercede all conditions contained in
Resolution No. 1694 (SDP 80-11).
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the city of Carlsbad, California, held on
the 26th day of May, 1982 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Farrow, Rombotis, Schlehuber, Friestedt, Rawlins
NOES: None
ABSENT: Marcus, Jose
ABSTAIN: None
CARLSBAD. PLANNING - COMMISSION
ATTEST:
'CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSI~N
PC RES0 # 1964 -7 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
10
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2351
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
AMENDMENT TO CONSTRUCT A VISITOR TOURIST CENTER BUILDING 01
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING .A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN 1-5 AND PASEO DEL NORTE
APPLICANT: PEA SOUP ANDERSEN
IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF THE PEA SOUP ANDERSEN MOTEL.
CASE NO.: SDP 80-ll(B)
WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the
:ity of Carlsbad, and referred to the Planning Commission: and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request a:
,rovided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code: and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code,
:he Planning Commission did, on the 26th day of September, 1984,
:onsidered said request on property described as:
Parcels 1 and 2 of Parcel Map No. 11284 recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County May 11,
Rancho Agua Hedionda, according to map thereof No. 1981 as File No. 81-145557, being a portion of Lot H of
823.
WHEREAS, at said hearing, upon hearing and considering all
:estimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be
leard, said Commission considered all factors relating to Site
)evelopment Plan No. 80-ll(B).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
:ommission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
4) That the above recitations are true and correct.
3) That based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the
Commission APPROVES SDP 80-11(8), based on the following
findings and subject to the following conditions:
'indings:
1) The project is consistent with the City's General Plan since
designation. the use is compatible with the Travel Service (TS) land use
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The proposed realignment of Pase Del Norte will improve the
safety and carrying capacity of the roadway.
Subsequent to the realignment of Paseo Del Norte, the site is
adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed
project.
The project is consistent with all City public facility pol- icies and ordinances since:
a) All necessary public improvements have been provided or
will be required as conditions of approval.
b) The applicant has agreed and is required by the inclusion of an appropriate condition to pay a public facilities fee
Performance of that contract and payment of the fee will
enable this body to find that public facilities will be
available concurrent with need as required by the general
plan.
This project will not cause any significant environmental
impacts and a Negative Declaration has been issued by the Land Use Planning Manager on September 10, 1984 and approved by the Planning Commission on September 26, 1984.
ionditions:
Approval is granted for SDP 80-ll(B), as shown on Exhibits
"A" - "F", dated September 26, 1984, incorporated by reference
and on file in the Land Use Planning Office. Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions.
building permits will not be issued for development of the This project is approved upon the express condition that
subject property unless the City Engineer determines that sewex facilities are available at the time of application for such
sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of
occupancy.
This project is approved upon the express condition that the
applicant shall pay a public facilities fee as required by Citl
Council Policy No. 17, dated April 2, 1982, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, and according to the agreement executed by the applicant for payment of said fee, a copy of that agreement, dated August 17, 1984, is on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference.
be consistent with the General Plan and approval for this
If said fee is not paid as promised, this application will not
project shall be void.
Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all
sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building permit issuance.
'C RES0 NO. 2351 -2-
The applicant shall prepare a reproducible mylar of the final
site plan incorporating the conditions contained herein. Said
site plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Land Use
Planning Manager prior to the issuance of building permits.
The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscape and irrigatior
plan which shall be submitted to and approved by the Land Use
Planning Manager prior to the issuance of building permits.
All parking lot trees shall be a minimum of 15 gallons in size.
All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and
thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris.
Any signs proposed for this development shall be designed in
conformance with the City's Sign Ordinance and shall require
review and approval of the Land Use Planning Manager prior to
installation of such signs.
masonry wall with gates pursuant to City standards. Location Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a six-foot high
of said receptacles shall be approved by the Land Use Planning
Manager.
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be
buffered from adjacent properties and streets, pursuant to architecturally integrated and shielded from view and the sounc
Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the
Land Use Planning Manager and Building and Planning Director.
For the cul-de-sac street, the name "Pea Soup Way" is
specifically not approved. The name of this street shall be
subject to the approval of the Land Use Planning Manager and
shall conform to the City Council's street naming policy.
iEngineerinq
113) The developer shall obtain a grading permit prior to the
21
22
~
commencement of any clearing or grading of the site.
i
23
24
25
26
27
14) The grading for this project is defined as "controlled grading' by Section 11.06.170(a) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Grading shall be performed under the observation of a civil
engineer whose responsibility it shall be to coordinate site
the approved grading plan, submit required reports to the City inspection and testing to insure compliance of the work with
Engineer and verify compliance with Chapter 11.06 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
-3-
L6)
L7
18)
22)
23 1
Upon completion of grading, the developer shall insure that an
"as-graded" geologic plan shall be submitted to the City
Engineer. The plan shall clearly show all the geology as exposed by the grading operation, all geologic corrective measures as actually constructed and must be based on a contou map which represents both the pre and post site grading. This plan shall be signed by both the soils engineer and the
engineering geologist. The plan shall be prepared on a mylar
or similar drafting film and shall become a permanent record.
No grading shall occur outside the limits of the project unles a letter of permission is obtained from the owners of the
affected properties.
A separate grading plan shall be submitted and approved and a separate grading permit issued for the borrow or disposal site if located within the city limits.
All slopes within this project shall be no steeper than 2 :l.
Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to any propose
construction site within this project the developer shall
proposed haul route. The developer shall comply with all
submit to and receive approval from the City Engineer for the
conditions and requirements the City Engineer may impose with
regards to the hauling operation.
The developer shall exercise special care during the
construction phase of this project to prevent any off-site
measures and shall construct temporary desiltation/detention siltation. The developer shall provide erosion control
basins of type, size and location as approved by the City
Engineer. The basins and erosion control measures shall be
shown and specified on the grading plan and shall be
constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to
the start of any other grading operations. Prior to the
removal of any basins or facilities so constructed the area
served shall be protected by additional drainage facilities,
approved by the City Engineer. The developer shall maintain
slope erosion control measures and other methods required or
of time satisfactory to the City Engineer and shall guarantee the temporary basins and erosion control measures for a period
deposit and bonding in amounts and types suitable to the City their maintenance and satisfactory performance through cash
Engineer.
Additional drainage easements and drainage structures shall be
provided or installed as may be required by the County Department of Sanitation and Flood Control or the City Engi-
neer.
All land and/or easements required to satisfy the conditions o approval for this project shall be granted to the City, withou
cost to the City, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost to the City.
PC RES0 NO. 2351 -4- 13
1
2
3
4
" F;
6
7
E
S
1c
11
1;
1:
1f
1:
1f
1:
1E
15
2(
21
2:
2;
21
2:
2t
2:
2E
The applicant has submitted a request for a street standards
variance. The approval of SDP 80-ll(B) is contingent upon approval of the variance.
The median in "Pea Soup Way" is approved subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer and the following
provisions:
a) The nose of the median shall be 25 feet westerly of the
line of the extended curb face of the westerly side of Paseo Del Norte.
of the median b) Pea Soup Way shall have a 15 foot wide lane on each side
d) The entire frontage of "Pea Soup Way" shall be designated c) The median shall be no less than eight feet wide.
a no parking zone and shall be so signed and painted.
The curb and gutter on the high side of the super elevated and
with a lip to flowline vertical dimension of two inches.
super elevation transitions of Paseo Del Norte shall be type H
agreed to be installed by secured agreement by the developer
Improvements listed in this section shall be installed or
before the issuance of any building permit. The developer
pay all associated fees and performance guarantees prior to
shall obtain approval of the plans from the City Engineer and
issuance of any building permit. The developer shall install
prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or occupancy 0,
said improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
any portion of the project for any purpose. The improvements
are:
a) "Pea Soup Way" to full width local street standards for
b) Paseo Del Norte to full width secondary arterial street
its entire length.
standards except that the street width shall be 66 feet
curb to curb and the right-of-way shall be 86 feet for its
entire length within the project site. The site consists
of Parcels 2 and 3 of Parcel Map No. 11284
c) Sanitary Sewer Line
d) Domestic Water Line e) Street Lights
f) Storm Drains
The developer shall comply with all the rules, regulations and
design requirements of the respective sewer and water agencies
regarding services to the project.
All private driveways shall be kept clear of parked vehicles a
all times, and shall have posted "No Parking/Fire Lane Tow Awa:
Zone" pursuant to Section 17.04.040, Carlsbad Municipal Code.
All plans, specifications, and supporting documents for the improvements of this project shall be signed and sealed by the
be signed and sealed, except that bound documents may be signes Engineer in responsible charge of the work. Each sheet shall
and sealed on their first page. Additionally the first sheet Of each set of plans shall have the following certificate:
PC RES0 NO. 2351 -5-
"DECLARATION OF RESPONSIBLE CHARGE"
I hereby declare that I am the Engineer of Work for this project, that I have exercised responsible charge over the
design of the project as defined in Section 6703 of the Business and Professions Code, and that the design is consistent with current standards.
I understand that the check of project drawings and specifications by the City of Carlsbad is confined to a review only and does not relieve me, as Engineer of Work, of my responsibilities for project design. (Name, Address and Telephone of Engineering firm)
Firm:
Address :
City, St. :
Telephone:
BY Date :
(Name of Engineer)
R.C.E. NO. #
The developer shall provide the City with a reproducible mylar
copy of the site plan as approved by the Planning Commission. The site plan shall reflect the conditions of approval by the City. The plan copy shall be submitted to the
City Engineer prior to improvement plan submittal.
Prior to the approval of any building permits for this project,
owner shall give written consent to the annexation of the area
shown within the boundaries of the site into the existing City
of Carlsbad Street Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1.
ire Conditions:
2) Prior to the issuance of building permits, complete building plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire
Department.
3) Fire retardant roofs shall be required on all structures.
4) All fire alarm systems, fire hydrants, extinguishing systems,
automatic sprinklers, and other systems pertinent to the
project shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval
prior to construction.
///
///
C RES0 NO. 2351 -6-
Q5
I! PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
21 IIPlanning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on
3 '~
4
5
6,
7
NOES : None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioner L'Heureux. 8
ABSENT: Commissioner Marcus.
lthe 26th day of September, 1984, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES : Chairman Rombotis, Commissioners Farrow,
Schlehuber, McFadden and Smith.
10 gl
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
LA&- /
BO~IS, Chairman
PLkNNING COMMISSION
I~TTEST:
AND USE PLANNING MANAGER
26
i 27 !
28 1
kC RES0 NO. 2351 -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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3463
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SITE
ALLOW THE OPERATION OF AN AUTO RENTAL DESK ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND PASEO DEL
NORTE.
CASE NAME: BUDGET CAR RENTAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. SDP BO-ll(C) TO
CASE NO: SDP 8O-llIC1
WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and
referred to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by Title
21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning
Commission did, on the 18th day of November, 1992, consider said request on property
described as:
Parcel 1 of Map 11284 in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, recorded on May 11, 1981.
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 SDP SO-ll(C).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A)
B)
....
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
APPROVES SDP 88-11(C), based on the following findings and subject to the
following conditions:
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
FinditXS:
conditions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The requested use is properly related to the site, surroundings, and environmental
setting, 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 not adversely impact the site,
surroundings, or traffic circulation because no physical changes to the site are
proposed and existing excess parking spaces are available on the site.
The site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use
because the proposed use involves only a desk within the lobby of the existing motel
and the parking of rental vehicles in existing available parking spaces on the site.
All of 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 because no such features are required to adjust the
requested use. The use involves only the addition of a desk in the lobby of the
existing motel and the parkiug of rental vehicles in existing available parking spaces
on the site.
The street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic
generated by the proposed use because an insignificant amount of tdic will be
generated by the proposed use and adequate parking is available for the use.
The findings included in Planning Commission Resolution No's. 1694 (SDP 80-111,
1964 (SDP 80-11(A)), and 2351 (SDP 80-ll(8)) are incorporated herein by
reference.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Approval is granted for SDP 80-11(C), as shown on Exhibit "A", dated November
18, 1992, incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning Department.
Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these
conditions.
The conditions included in Planning Commission Resolution No's. 1694 (SDP 80-
11), 1964 (SDP 80-11(A)), and 2351 (SDP 80-11(8)), are incorporated herein by
reference.
The parking of rental trucks on the site is spedfieally prohibited.
A maximum of 13 parking spaces may be occupied by rental cars.
The13parkingstallstobeusedbyBudgetRentalshallbeclearlymarked.
PC RES0 NO. 3463 -2-
6. The applicant shall submit pmf of a California State Coastal Commission Permit
signed and acknowledged by the applicant prior to issuance of a Business License.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of November, 1992,
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Erwin, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm,
Noble, Welshon, Savary & Hall.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ATTEST:
PLANNING DIRECTOR
PC RES0 NO. 3463
TOM ERWIN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
-3-
74
r
i
L 77
I \
77
Planning Commission Minutes December 19.2001
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chairperson Segall asked Mr. Rideout to introduce the first item
1. CUP 87-10x1 - HERRICK HOLDINGS - Request for a five year extension of CUP 87-10 to allow
the continued operation of a mixed use project that includes a restaurant, banquet facilities,
offices and motel. Also included in the CUP extension is the continued sale of alcoholic
beverages in the restaurant facilities and 15 percent reduction in required parking for the mixed
use project. The project is located on Raintree Drive off Avenida Encinas within Local Facilities
Management Zone 6.
2. CDP 01-25 -VINE RESIDENCE - Request for approval of a Coastal Development Permit to allow
for the construction of a single-family residence within the City’s Coastal Zone located along the
south side of Date Avenue, between Garfield Street and the A.T. & SF. Rail Road tracks, within Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
3. CDP 01-32 - GRlFFlNG RESIDENCE - Request for approval of a Coastal Development Permit to
allow for the construction of a single-family residence within the City’s Coastal Zone located on
the north side of Redwood Avenue, between Carlsbad Boulevard and Garfield Street, within Local
Facilities Management Zone 1.
4. CUP 01-OGICDP 01-IUSDP 80-11(D) - KING’S FISH HOUSE - Request for the recommendation
of adoption of a Negative Declaration and the recommendation of approval for a Conditional Use
Amendment to construct an 8,830 square foot restaurant on a 2.0 acre site located on the west
Permit and Coastal Development Permit and the approval of a Site Development Plan
side of Paseo Del Norte, north of Palomar Airport Road and south of Car Country Drive in the
Coastal Zone and Local Facilities Management Zone 3.
Mr. Rideout stated that agenda items 1, 2, 3, and 4 are normally heard in a public hearing context,
however, these projects are minor and routine in nature with no outstanding issues and Staff recommends
approval of all. He recommended they be acted upon and voted on as a group. If the Commission or
someone from the public wishes to discuss or pull an item then Staff would be available to respond to
questions.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Trigas and duly seconded that the Planning
Commission adopt Item #I (CUP 87-1Oxl), Item #2 (CDP 01-25), Item #3 (CDP
01-32), and Item #4 (CUP OI-OG/CDP 01-18ISDP 80-1 l(D)).
VOTE: 7-0-0
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Compas, Dominguez, Heineman,
Nielsen. and Trigas
NOES: None ABSTAIN: None
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above-
entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the
printer of
This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
North County Times Proof of Publication of
Notice of Public
Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The /
Times-Advocate and which newspa
adjudicated newspapers of general
the Superior Court of the County
State of California, for the County
that the notice of which the annex
copy (set in type not smaller than
been published in each regular and
said newspaper and not in any sup1
on the following dates, to-wit:
January 12, 2002
I certify (or declare) under penalty
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at San Marcos
14th
this
January, 2002
of
CASE FILE CUP 01-06iCDP 01-18
CASE NAME: KING'S FISH HOUSE
Legdl 71973. January 12,ZoDZ
~~ORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising
m lZZrnl
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
DESCRIPTION: Request for the adoption of a Negative Declaration and the approval for a Conditional
Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit to construct an 8,830 square foot restaurant on a 2.0 acre
site.
LOCATION: This project is within the City of Carlsbad's Coastal Zone located on the west side of Paseo
Del Norte, north of Palomar Airport Road and south of Car Country Drive in the Coastal Zone and Local
Facilities Management Zone 3.
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 21 1-021-23
APPLICANT : Gary Mayeda
100 West Broadway, #550
Long Beach, CA 90802
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 Tuesday, January 22, 2002 at 6:OO
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
will be available on or after Friday, January 18, 2002.
recommendation given, followed by public testimony, questions and a decision. Copies of the staff report
City of Carlsbad Planning Department, Monday through Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 530 p.m., Friday 8:00
If you have any questions, or would like to be notified of the decision, please contact Van Lynch at the
a.m. to 5:OO p.m. at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008, (760) 602-4613.
APPEALS
court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
If you challenge the Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permit andlor Coastal Development Permit in
described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerks
Office, prior to the public hearing.
1. Appeals to the City Council: Where the decision is appealable to the City Council, appeals
2. Coastal Commission Appealable Project
must be filed in writing within ten (IO) calendar days after a decision by the Planning
Commission.
[7 This site is located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area. €a This site is not located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area.
Where the decision is appealable to the Coastal Commission, appeals must be filed with the Coastal
Commission within ten (IO) working days after the Coastal Commission has received a Notice of Final
Action from the City of Carlsbad. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission of the date that
their appeal period will conclude. The San Diego office of the Coastal Commission is located at 7575
Metropolitan Drive, Suite 103, San Diego, California 92108-4402
CASE FILE CUP 01-06lCDP 01-18
CASE NAME: KING'S FISH HOUSE
PUBLISH: SATURDAY, JANUARY 12,2002
KING’S FISH HOUSE
CUP 01-OGICDP 01-18
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
COMPLETE DATE: October 4,2001
DESCRIPTION:
Request for the adoption of a Negative Declaration and the approval for a Conditional
Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit to construct an 8,830 square foot
restaurant on a 2.0 acre site.
LOCATION:
This project is within the City of Carlsbad’s Coastal Zone located on the west side of
Paseo Del Norte, north of Palomar Airport Road and south of Car Country Drive in the
Coastal Zone and Local Facilities Management Zone 3.
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER:
211-021-23
APPLICANT:
Gary Mayeda
100 W. Broadway, #550
Long Beach, CA 90802
A public hearing on the above proposed project will be held by the City Council in the Council
Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, on [DATE] at 6:OO 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 [DATE].
If you have any questions, or would like to be notified of the decision, please contact Van Lynch
at the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, Monday through Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,
4613.
Friday 8:OO a.m. to 5:OO p.m. at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008, (760) 602-
...
..
...
...
...
...
APPEALS
If you challenge the Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit in court, you may
be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad prior to
the public hearing.
1. ADDeals to the City Council: Where the decision is appealable to the City Council,
appeals must be filed in writing within ten (IO) calendar days after a decision by the
Planning Commission.
2. Coastal Commission Appealable Project: 0 This site is located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area.
This site is not located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area.
Where the decision is appealable to the Coastal Commission, appeals must be filed with the
Coastal Commission within ten (IO) working days after the Coastal Commission has received a
Notice of Final Action from the City of Carlsbad. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal
Commission of the date that their appeal period will conclude. The San Diego office of the
Coastal Commission is located at 7575 Metropolitan Drive, Suite 103, San Diego, California
92108-4402.
CASE FILE: CUP Ol-OG/CDP 01-18
CASE NAME: KING’S FISH HOUSE
PUBLISH: [DATE]
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5;!6?-
CARLSBAD UNlF SCHOOL DlST
801 PINE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
LAFCO
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
1600 PACIFIC HWY
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
U.S. FISH &WILDLIFE
2730 LOKER AVE WEST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY
SERVICES
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY
SERVICES
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
VAN LYNCH
CITY OF ENClNlTAS
505 S VULCAN AVE
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DlST
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STE 100
91 74 SKY PARK CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
STE 103
7575 METROPOLITAN DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKSlCOMMUNlTY
SERVICES
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING
DEPT
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
SD COUNTY PLANNING
STE B
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
SANDAG
401 B STREET
STE 800
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
I.P.U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
Gary Mayeda
LONG BEACH, CA 90802
100 W. BROADWAY #500
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKSlCOMMUNlTY
SERVICES
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
12/31/2001
~ .. AVERYm Address Labels Laser 5160@
JCINAS
CA 92008
M TAYLO / SPK-PACIFIC VIEW PU LLC
-211 AVEJUZJZ EE 2180 SAND HILL RD
MENLO PARK CA 94025
ARLSBAD POINT CORP
\N DIEGO CA 92177
'0 BOX 178870
4LOMAR:CO
;50 AVENIDA ENCINAS
iRLSBAD CA 92008
PRENTISS PROPERTIES
SUITE 400
DW TX 75220
3890 W NORTEWEST EWY
PALOMAR CO
UBITISS PROP
$90 ORTBWEST RWY
TX 75220
RTEUEST EWY
TX 75220
RLSBAD PROPERTIES INC PENSION F 0 S VIRGIL AVE 5
S ANGELES CA 90020 L
CB mCE m
SUITE 106
5600 AVWIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CE CO THE LAKE DR
AQUAH WA 98027
WINTER RAY TR
FULLERTON CA 92831
1745 ROCKY RD
PACIFIC SALES KITCHEN
2080 WASHINGTON AVE
TORRANCE CA 90501
TER RAY TR
BOX 290
.LAS TX 75221
RAY WImER
SUITE 218
6725 MESA RIDGE RD
SAM DIEGO CA 92121
CARLWART Le
SUITE 100
5600 AVE ENCINAS
CARLSBM CA 92008
TX 75220
AD CA 92008
SNYDER LEASING
BALDWIN PARK CA 91706
13502 VIRGINIA AVE
AD CA 92008
PATRICK D JACKSON
5900 PASTEUR CT 200 CARLSBAD CA 92008
CRAIG REALTY GROUP
1500 QUAIL ST
SUITE 100
NEWPORT BEACE CA 92660
GAISER JAMES;DOROTHY TRUST 0
3340 RIDGECREST DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
GREEK VILLAGE L L C
6030 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
WINTER FAMILY PARTNERSHIP
FULLERTON CA 92831
1745 ROCKY RD
BROOKING DORIS TR
VISTA CA 92084
375 SKYLINE DR
HOEHN GROUP THE
5454 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
TOMJCMCO
1524 DORCAS ST
SAN DIEGO CA 921 10
GRODY PROPERTIES L L C SHARP
621 1 BEACH BLVD 800 CHRYSLER DR
BUENA PARK CA 90621 AUBURN HILLS MI 48326
DlRlTA INVESTMENTS
PO BOX 91940
PASADENA CA 91 109
*** METROSCAN LABELS ***
Date: 11/19/101
Sort: Parcel Number
Processed: 8
Report: Laser 3 Across Labels
PENSION F CARPENTERS
P 0 BOX 17969
LOS ANGELES CA 90017-0969
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 840 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
5702 PASEO DEL NORTE 5600 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
5555 PASEO DEL NORTE 5434 PASEO DEL NORTE
CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD CA 92008
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
COMPLETE DATE: October 4,2001
DESCRIPTION:
Request for the adoption of a Negative Declaration and the approval for a Conditional
Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit to construct an 8.830 square foot restaurant on a 2.0 acre site.
LOCATION:
This project is within the City of Carlsbad's Coastal Zone located on the west side of
Paseo Del Norte, north of Palomar Airport Road and south of Car Country Drive in the
Coastal Zone and Local Facilities Management Zone 3.
ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER:
211-021-23
APPLICANT:
Gary Mayeda
100 W. Broadway, #550
Long Beach, CA 90802
A public hearing on the above proposed project will be held by the City Council in the Council
Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, on [DATE] at 6:OO 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 [DATE].
If you have any questions, or would like to be notified of the decision, please contact Van Lynch
at the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, Monday through Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,
Friday 8:OO a.m. to 5:OO p.m. at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008, (760) 602-
4613.
..
...
...
...
..
APPEALS
If you challenge the Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit in court, you may
described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad prior to
be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
the public hearing.
1. ADDealS to the Citv Council: Where the decision is appealable to the City Council,
appeals must be filed in writing within ten (IO) calendar days after a decision by the
Planning Commission.
2. Coastal Commission Appealable Project: 0 This site is located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area.
This site is not located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area.
Where the decision is appealable to the Coastal Commission, appeals must be filed with the
Coastal Commission within ten (IO) working days after the Coastal Commission has received a
Notice of Final Action from the City of Carlsbad. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal .
Commission of the date that their appeal period will conclude. The San Diego office of the
Coastal Commission is located at 7575 Metropolitan Drive, Suite 103, San Diego, California
921 08-4402.
CASE FILE: CUP Ol-OG/CDP 01-18
CASE NAME: KING’S FISH HOUSE
PUBLISH: [DATE]
KING’S FISH HOUSE
CUP 01-OG/CDP 01-18