HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-11-05; City Council; 16959; Arco AM/PM at Tamarack CUP 01-19/V 02-03CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL
AB# 16,959
DEPT. PLN
ARC0 AMlPM AT TAMARACK MTG. 11-5-02
TITLE:
That the City Council ADOPT City Council Resolution No. 2002-323 ADOPTING a
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
CITY MGR~
Negative Declaration and Addendum, and APPROVING Conditional Use Permit CUP 01-19, and
Variance V 02-03 as recommended for adoption and approval by the Planning Commission.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
CUP 01-WN 02-03
Project application(s) To be Reviewed - Reviewed by and Administrative
Approvals Final at Council Final at Planning
Commission
~ Environmental Review
Variance
X Conditional Use Permit
Negative
X
Declaration
The project site has been developed and was operated as a gas station with service bays. The
existing structure has been abandoned for some time and the applicant has proposed demolition of
the existing structure and development of a new gas station with market and car wash.
The project is within the C-I Neighborhood Commercial Zone and the CommercialNisitor Serving
Overlay Zone. Both zoning designations allow gas stations with a Conditional Use Permit. Access
is provided on Tamarack Avenue and Jefferson Street. The market and fueling canopy meet all
setback requirements. Parking along the Tamarack Avenue frontage and the carwash require
approval of a variance from the CommercialNisitor Serving Overlay Zone setback standards.
Three members of the public spoke in opposition to approval of the project. After consideration of
the public testimony and discussion, the Planning Commission has recommended that the City
Council approve the Conditional Use Permit and Variance with the addition of two conditions, by a
Carol Place with a six-foot wall. The Planning Commission also added a condition stipulating that
unanimous vote. The Planning Commission added a requirement to replace a 42 screen wall along
the applicant offered to self impose a restriction not to sell alcohol at this location.
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
impacts could be created as a result of the project. In consideration of the foregoing, the Planning
Director issued a Negative Declaration on May 22, 2002, and the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the Negative Declaration.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There are no direct City related costs associated with approval of the proposed project. The City will
Ienefit some from gasoline tax revenues as well as sales tax revenues.
'/I/
I
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 16r959
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STATUS:
Local Facilities Management Plan 1
Growth Control Point
NIA Special Facilities
NIA Net Density
NIA
EXHIBITS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
City Council Resolution No. 2002-323
Location Map
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5221, 5222, and 5223
Planning Commission Staff Report, dated September 4, 2002
Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated September 4, 2002.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
1;
16
1s
2c
21
2;
2:
2L
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2002-323
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT AND VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF
A GAS STATION, MARKET AND CAR WASH ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
TAMARACK AVENUE AND JEFFERSON STREET IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1
CASE NAME: ARC0 AMlPM AT TAMARACK
CASE NO.: CUP 01-19N 02-03
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as
follows:
WHEREAS, on September 4, 2002, the Carlsbad ning Commission held a T-T
duly noticed public hearing to consider a Conditional Use
Permit and Variance to allow for the car wash, and
adopted Planning Commission to the City
Council that the Negative
Variance be approved; and
City of Carlsbad, on the day of
noticed public hearing to consider the
ted in or opposed to the Negative Declaration,
SOLVED by the City Council of the City oi
re true and correct.
of the Planning Commission for the adoption oi
oval of Conditional Use Permit 01-19 and Variance 02-03 are
and conditions of the Planning Commission
contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5221, 5222, and 5223 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:
...
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
"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
filed in the appropriate court no later than the ninetieth day following the Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be
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
following the date on which the record is
mailed to the party, or his attorney of r
request for the preparation of the record
with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad
Carlsbad, California 92008."
PASSED AND ADOP ouncil of the City of
Carlsbad on the day of
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT: \
ATEST:
LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
Page 2 of 2 of Resolution NO.
2002-323 -2-
EXHIBIT 2
ARC0 AMIPM AT TAMARACK
CUP 01-1 9/V 02-03
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 :
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5221
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
ADDENDUM FOR A NEW 2,997 SQUARE FOOT ARCO
AMPM FACILITY WITH 12 FUELING STATIONS AND A 968
SQUARE FOOT CAR WASH AND A REQUEST FOR
REDUCED SETBACKS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF TAMARACK AVENUE AND JEFFERSON
STREET IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: ARCO AM&” AT TAMARACK
CASE NO.: CUP 01-19N 02-03
WHEREAS, BP West Coast Products, LLC., “Developer,” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Saad Attisha, “Owner,”
described as
Lot 1 of Tamarack Plaza, in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof No.
5944, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego
County on August 23,1967
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration and Addendum was prepared in conjunction
with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 4th day of September, 2002,
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 and Addendum.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true andcorrect.
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration
and Addendum according to Exhibit "ND" dated May 30,2002, and "PII" dated
May 20, 2002, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following
findings:
Findings:
1.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A.
B.
C.
D.
It has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration and
Addendum for CUP 01-19 and V 02-03, the environmental impacts therein
identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
The Negative Declaration and Addendum has been prepared in accordance with
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines
and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PC RES0 NO. 5221 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of September 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez,
Heineman, Segall, White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Sh %Y
SEENA TRIGAS, Chairperson
CARISBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5221 -3- 8
- Citv of Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddresslLocation:
Project Description:
Northeast comer of Tamarack Avenue and Jefferson Street,
Carlsbad California, 92008.
Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the
construction of a new 2,997 square foot ARCO Mm facility
with 12 heling stations and a 968 square foot car wash at the north
east comer of Tamarack Avenue and Jefferson Street in Local
Facilities Management Zone 1
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 30 days of date
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Christer Westman in the Planning Department
at (760) 602-4614.
DATED: MAY 30,2002
CASE NO: cup 01-19
CASE NAME: ARCO AMRM AT TAMARACK
PUBLISH DATE: MAY 30,2002
MICHAEL J. HOLZMLER
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad. CA 92008-7314 - (760) 602-4600 - FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us 9@
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
CASE NO: CUP 01-19
DATE: MAY 20.2002
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: ARCO A”M AT TAMARACK
2. APPLICANT: ARCO Products Comuanv c/o TAIT and Associates
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 9089 Clairemont Mesa Blvd. #300 San
Dieeo CA 92123
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMIITED: Seutember 3 1.2001
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the
construction of a new 2,997 square foot ARCO Am/F’m facility with 12 fueling stations and a 968
square foot car wash at the north east comer of Tamarack Avenue and Jefferson Street in Local
Facilities Management Zone 1.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning Transportation/Circulation Public Services
0 Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
Water
Air Quality
0 Hazards
0 Noise
0 Cultural Resources
0 Recreation
c] Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
/6
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
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 MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A(n) Negative
Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Negative Declaration
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been
prepared.
5/21 I0 7,
Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96 4/
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 all 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 /a
a 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.
a 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 ootential imoacts and the DrODOSed mitigation measures aooears at the end of the
form under DIkUSSION’ OF ENVIRONkENTALwEVALUATION: A Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96 43
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
(Source #(s): (#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.& 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)
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed offlcial regional or local
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 -
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
5.5-6)
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) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or till? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
5.1-1 - 5.1.15)
5.1-15)
g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattern, 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 - L.2-11)
11)
5
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless !-pact
Mitigation Incorporated
0
0 0 om
0 UIXI
0 0 om
om
0 0 om
0 0 om
0 0 om O 0 UIXI
0 0 UIXI
0 0 om
0 nm
Rev. 03/28/96 14
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources),
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1)
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 - 5.2-1 1)
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)
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
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 temperature, 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. TRANSPORTATION/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)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air trafflc 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)
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Sienificant Sieniticant Simiticant lmoact - Impact
I7
0
0
0
0
€3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
unless Impact
Incorporated Mitigation
1
0 OB
0 OM
OB
0 OB
0 OB
0 OB
0 on
0 OB
0 OB
0 OB
0 00
0 OB
0 ON
OB
0 OB
0 OB
0 OB
0 OISI
0 OB
6 Rev. 03/28/96 15-
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant Impact Significant Impact
Less Than No
Impact
Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated 0
0
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vemal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
c) Result in the loss of availability of a hown mineral
1 - 5.13-9)
resource that would be of fume value to the region and
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
theresidents ofthe State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
E. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
5.10.1-5)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
e) Increase fue hazard in areas with flammable brush,
healthhazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
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-
15)
0
0
0
OB
OB n[xI
17 OB
OB 0 0
0 0 OB
0
0 0 OB
0
0
0
0
0 0 b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-
1 - 5.9-15)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 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 -
5.12.8-7)
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
VLUTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Rev. 03/28/96 /6 ,7
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Potentially Significant
Impact
Significant Potentially
Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
0
Significant Less Than
Impact Impact
No
a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
b) Communications systems?
c) Local of 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)
0 Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
5.13-1 -5.13-9)
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
17
0
0
0
[XI
151 ISI
IXI 151 151 IXI g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.3-7)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1 - 5.11-5) 0 0 0 151
€3
(XI
0 b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
c) Createlightorglare?(#l:Pgs5.11-1-5.11-5)
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? (#I :Pgs 5.8-
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
10)
10)
1 - 5.8-10)
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
XV.RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
b) Affect existing recreational opporhmities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
0
0
[51
(XI 0
0 0 0 0 0 151 151
R 0 IXI
0
€3 0
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,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
0 0 IXI
8 Rev. 03/28/96 17
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? om 0 0
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
0
EARLIER ANALYSES.
0 0 [XI
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)@). 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.
9 Rev. 03/28/96 /f
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The project is the demolition of an existing abandoned gas station and the new construction of a
gas station with convenience market and car wash,
No environmental impacts have been identified for the project. Because the site was previously
used as a gas station, and it is within an urban area at the comer of two streets, there is no habitat
onsite that may contribute to a preserve system nor are there any sensitive plant or animal species
which must be preserved.
The project average daily traffic will be the same as was the case when the previous gas station
was in operation. The access points to the site will be relocated which will create better
circulation and access to the site than the previous design.
The project has also been designed to incorporate all best management practices consistent with
the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Mello 11 segment of the Carlsbad Local
Coastal Program regarding water quality.
The project is conditioned to perform remedial grading to remove the contaminated soil
identified in the Site Acquisition Environmental Assessment prepared by Secor, dated August
27, 2001. Developer shall provide written documentation from the San Diego County
Department of Environmental Health that said contaminants have been removed and disposed of
in accordance will all applicable regulations.
AIR OUALITY:
In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR which analyzed the impacts which will result
from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludes that
continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have
cumulative significant impacts in the form of increased gas and electric power consumption and
vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon
monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates.
These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego
Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air
emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to build-out
as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air
quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan build-out, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2)
measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation
Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including
mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
10 Rev. 03/28/96 /9
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by
City Council Resolution NO. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for
air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects
covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR
This document is available at the Planning Department.
CIRCULATION:
In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would
result f?om the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded
that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will result in
increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-out
traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional
through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all
freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the
implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the
City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at build-out.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out,
numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include:
1) measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to
develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks,
pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation
strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to
control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either
been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at build-out of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects covered by the General Plan’s Master EIR.
This project is within the scope of that MEIR This document is available at the Planning
Department.
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 MER 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, 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.
11 Rev. 03/28/96 40
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 Impact Reoort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MER 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
12 Rev. 03/28/96 dl
ADDENDUM TO NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CUP 01-19N 02-03 - ARCO AM/PM AT TAMARACK
Project AddressLocation: Northeast comer of Tamarack Avenue and Jefferson Street,
Carlsbad California, 92008.
Project Description: Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Variance
for the construction of a new 2,997 square foot ARCO AmPm
facility with I2 fueling stations and a 968 square foot car wash
with reduced setbacks at the north east comer of Tamarack Avenue
and Jefferson Street in Local Facilities Management Zone 1
This addendum merely clarifies that the project includes a variance request.
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. 5222
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF NEW 2,997 SQUARE FOOT ARCO
AM/€" FACILITY WITH 12 FUELING STATIONS AND A
CAR WASH ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF TAMARACK AVENUE AND
JEFFERSON STREET IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: ARCO MM AT TAMARACK
CASE NO.: CUP 01-19
WHEREAS, BP West Coast Products, LLC., "Developer," has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Saad Attisha, ''Owner,''
described as
Lot 1 of Tamarack Plaza, in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof No.
5944, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego
County on August 23,1967
("the Property"); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Conditional Use
Permit as shown on Exhibits "A" - "L" dated September 4, 2002, on file in the Carlsbad
Planning Department, ARCO AM/PM AT TAMARACK - CUP 01-19, as provided by Chapter
21.42 and 21.50 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 4th day of September 2002,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the CUP.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
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
-
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 ARC0 WPM AT TAMARACK - CUP
01-19, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
That the requested use is 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 use will replace a previous freeway service facility and
the car wash will treat waste water before it enters the storm drain system. The use
is physically separated from surrounding’properties by streets, and as designed, the
use is physically compatible with the surrounding uses including other freeway
service facilities, high density housing, single family residential and an elementary
school.
That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in
that the 0.85 acre lot will be able to accommodate the 2,997 square foot building, gas
island canopy and pumps, and required parking while maintaining onsite access
lanes within the development standards of the Neighborhood Commercial zone (C-
1) and the CommerciaWisitor Serving Overlay Zone and the car wash can be
accommodated with a variance for the setbacks which is warranted because the
subject site is a peninsula regarding the relative development regulations and
landscape screening will be provided.
That all, the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to
adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be
provided and maintained, in that the site will be landscaped consistent with the
Carlsbad Landscape Manual and the guidelines of the CommerciaWisitor Serving
Overlay Zone. The property will be landscaped along the Carol Place street
frontage; Jefferson Street will be landscaped with a combination of trees, shrubs
and groundcover; and parking near Tamarack Avenue will be screened by a 42 inch
high screen wall and landscaping.
That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic
generated by the proposed use, in that the project will generate approximately 1,863
Average Daily Traffic (ADT). Tamarack Avenue is a “Collector” street with a
capacity of up to 10,000 ADT and Tamarack Avenue between Jefferson Street and
Adam Street is improved as a Secondary Arterial and is more than adequate to
handle the amount of traffic that the proposed project is expected to generate.
That it is to be developed as part of a freeway-service facility, containing a minimum of
two freeway oriented uses, which are the project and the restaurant on the adjacent
parcel to the east.
PC RES0 WO. 5222 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Conditions:
Note: Unless otherwise specified ~~~ herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
a building 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.
Operation and maintenance of the car wash shall be limited to the hours between
07:30 a.m. and 09:OO p.m. daily.
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.
DevelopedOperator 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-
discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c)
DevelopedOperator’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.
PC RES0 NO. 5222 -3- 075
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
2E
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Developer shall submit to the Planning Director a reproducible 24" x 36", mylar copy
of the Site Plan and conceptual grading plan reflecting the conditions approved by the
final decision making body.
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.
Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing
water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that
adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the
time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and
facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy.
This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this
project within 24 months from the date of approval of the associated Coastal
Development Permit by the California Coastal Commission.
The approval of the Conditional Use Permit is contingent upon approval of a Coastal
Development Permit issued by the California Coastal Commission or its successor in
interest, that substantially conforms to this approval. A signed copy of the Coastal
Development Permit must be submitted to the Planning Director. If the approval is
substantially different, an amendment to Conditional Use Permit shall be required.
Sign area, for all signs onsite, shall be limited to 109.8 sq. ft., individual components
shall be limited to: 30 sq. ft. monument(s); 10 sq. ft. sparks, limit (4); one facade sign
of 18.1 sq. ft. In addition, one of the sign areas on the existing freeway service
facility (as provided for in 21.208.100 (B.1.) pole sign, may be replaced with a new,
maximum 50 square foot sign.
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 shall be reviewed by the Planning Director annually to
determine if all conditions of this permit have been met and that the use does not have a
substantial negative effect on surrounding properties or the public health and welfare. If
the Planning Director determines that the use has such substantial negative effects, the
Planning Director shall recommend that the Planning Commission, after providing the
permittee the opportunity to be heard, add additional conditions to reduce or eliminate the
substantial negative effects.
This Conditional Use Permit is granted for a period of 10 years from the date of the
issuance of a Coastal Development Permit for the project. This permit may be
revoked at any time after a public hearing, if it is found that the use has a substantial
PC RES0 NO. 5222 -4- 076
1
2
3
4
5
0
5
E
9
IC
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
-
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 Planning Commission may
not grant such extension, unless it finds that there are no substantial negative effects on
smounding land uses or the public’s health and welfare. If a substantial negative effect
on surrounding land uses or the public’s health and welfare is found, the extension shall
be denied or granted with conditions which will eliminate or substantially reduce such
effects. There is no limit to the number of extensions the Planning Commission may
grant.
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. Developer shall construct and install all landscaping as
shown on the approved Final Plans, and maintain all landscaping in a healthy and thnving
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 Deparhnent 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 #I 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 1, 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.
Prior to the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit, 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, notifylng all interested parties and successors in
interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Conditional Use Permit by Resolution No.
5222 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.
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.
Developer shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of an exterior lighting plan
including parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid
any impacts on adjacent homes or property.
Developer shall construct, install and stripe not less than 14 parking spaces, as shown on
Exhibit “C” dated September 4,2002 and labeled as ARC0 AWPm at Tamarack.
PC RES0 NO. 5222 -5- .37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
22. A six foot wall shall he provided for security, screening and noise attenuation along
the frontage of Carol Place. The wall's location, color, and material are subject to
the approval of the Planning Director.
23. The sale of alcoholic beverages is prohibited as stipulated by the application for the
lifetime of the Conditional Use Permit CUP 01-19.
Encineerinp:
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
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.
Developer shall install and maintain sight distance corridors at street intersections in
accordance
Developer shall dedicate a private ingress and egress easement for the benefit of the
easterly property (Lot 2 of Map No. 5944). Limits of said easement shall be a
minimum of 24-feet wide. The projection of the easement shall be perpendicular to
Jefferson Street and centered at the proposed driveway along Jefferson and shall
extend to the easterly property line.
Developer shall revise the westerly landscape strip on the site plan to provide
temporary AC berms (but still maintain proposed landscaping) along the future
driveway access for the easterly property.
Fee and Ameements
29. 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
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
30. 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.
31. Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall perform remedial grading to
remove the contaminated soil identified in the Site Acquisition Environmental
Assessment prepared by Secor, dated August 27, 2001. Developer shall provide
written documentation from the San Diego County Department of Environmental
PC RES0 NO. 5222 -6- 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
Health that said contaminants have been removed and disposed of in accordance
with all applicable regulations.
32. All grading activities shall be limited to the "dry season" (from April 1st to October 1st of
each year). Grading activities shall be completed by October 3 1st. Grading activities may
be extended to November 15th upon written approval of the City Engineer, obtained in
advance, and only if all erosion control measures are in place by October 1st.
Dedicationsflmprovernents
33.
34.
35.
Developer shall remove and replace deteriorated sections of curb, gutter and sidewalk
along Tamarack Avenue and Jefferson Street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and
as reflected on the Site Plan and conceptual grading plan.
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 notifying prospective owners and tenants of
the following:
A. All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with
established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and
hazardous waste products.
B. Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil,
antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives, and other such
fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm drain
or storm water conveyance systems. Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides,
herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet
Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective
containers.
C. Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants
when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements.
Prior to the issuance of grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first,
Developer shall submit for City approval a "Storm Water Management Plan"
(SWMP). This project is defined as "priority" project pursuant to Order No. 2001-
01 issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB).
The SWMP shall be prepared in compliance with current requirements and
provisions established by the CRWQCB and City of Carlsbad requirements. The
SWMP shall address measures to reduce, to the maximum extent possible, storm
water pollutant runoff for construction and post-construction stages of the project.
The SWMP shall:
A. Identify existing and post-development pollutants-of-concern. B. Recommend non-structural and structural Best Management Practices
(BMPs) to address said pollutants.
PC RES0 NO. 5222 -7- -29
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
Water
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
C. Establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up.
Special considerations and effort shall be applied to employee and customer
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 the emergency fuel spill containment system for the canopy area.
Developer shall meet with the Fire Marshal to determine if fire protection measures (fire
flows, fire hydrant locations, building sprinklers) are required to serve the project. Fire
hydrants, if proposed, shall be considered public improvements and shall be served by
public water mains to the satisfaction of the District Engineer.
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
Authority caDacitv charpebl prior to issuance of Building Permits.
The Developer shall install potable water services and meters at a location approved by
the District Engineer.
The Developer shall install sewer laterals and clean-outs at a location approved by the
District Engineer.
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
determined that adequate water and sewer facilities are available at the time of
occupancy.
Code Reminder:
The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to
the following:
41. 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
“fees/exactions.”
You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these feedexactions. 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
PC RES0 NO. 5222 -8- 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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 feedexactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of September 2002 by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez,
Heineman, Segall, White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
SEENA TRIGAS, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5222 -9-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1c
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1s
15
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5223
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO PARKING AND BUILDING
SETBACKS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT
THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TAMARACK AVENLTE AND
MENT ZONE 1
CASE NAME: ARCO MM AT TAMARACK
CASE NO: V 02-03
WHEREAS, BP West Coast Products, LLC., “Developer,” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Saad Attisha, “Owner,”
described as
JEFFERSON STREET IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGE-
Lot 1 of Tamarack Plaza, in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof No.
5944, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego
County on August 23,1967
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request to allow reduced setbacks
from the public street and interior side yard; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Variance as
shown on Exhibits “D” - “F” dated September 4, 2002, on file in the Carlsbad Planning
Department, ARCO AM/PM AT TAMARACK - V 02-03 provided by Chapter 21.50 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 4th day of September, 2002,
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 Variance.
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 above recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of ARC0 WPM AT
TAMARACK - V 02-03 based on the following findings:
Findings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
...
That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property that do not apply generally to the other properties in the same vicinity and zone
in that the property is part of the CommerciaWisitor Serving Overlay Zone which
properties to the north, west, and south are not, making the subject site a peninsula
and the property is unique in that it fronts on a public street on three sides when
one or two sides are typical.
That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but which is
denied to the property in question in that the nearest properties immediately to the
north, west and south are not subject to the CommerciaWisitor Serving Overlay
Zone development standards which are more onerous.
That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the
property is located in that redevelopment of the site will have a positive effect on the
appearance of the site and subsequently will be a positive visual replacement to the
existing abandoned gas station and the inclusion of the car wash is key to the
economic viability of the project. Reduction of the CommerciaWisitor Serving
Overlay Zone setbacks will not create hazards for pedestrians or vehicles. Adequate
buffers and screening to surrounding land uses will be provided by landscape and
screen walls. The maximum allowable noise level of 60 dBA CNEL offsite will not
be exceeded.
That the granting of a variance for reduced setbacks will not adversely affect the
comprehensive general plan and is consistent with and implements the requirements of
the certified local coastal program; and, that the granting of a variance for reduced
setbacks does not reduce or in any manner adversely affect the requirements to protect
coastal resources as specified in the zones included in the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance
and that the variance implements the purposes of zones adopted as implementation of the
Mello I1 segment of the local coastal program land use plan in that the location of
parking stalls and buildings on this site will not adversely affect views of the coast,
access to the coast or other coastal resources, and will not diminish the effectiveness
of the onsite storm water and wastewater runoffkreatment mechanisms.
PC RES0 NO. 5223 -2- 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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 feedexactions. If
you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section
66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely
follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions
DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning,
zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this
project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of September, 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez,
Heineman, Segall, White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Ir
LJ
SEENA TRIGAS, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HOYZMIL~~R -
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5223 -3- 34
The City of Carisbad Planning Department EXHIBIT 4
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Applicant requested extension
P.C. AGENDA OF: September 4,2002
SUBJECT: CUP 01-19N 02-03 - ARCO AM/PM AT TAMARACK - Request for
approval of a Negative Declaration and Addendum, and Conditional Use Permit
for the construction of a new 2,997 square foot ARCO AMPM facility with 12
fueling stations and a 968 square foot car wash, and a Variance request for
reduced setbacks at the northeast comer of Tamarack Avenue and Jefferson Street
in Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 522 1, 5222 and
5223 RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration and Addendum, and
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of Conditional Use Permit CUP 01-19, and Variance V 02-
03 for the construction of a new 2,997 square foot ARCO AMPM facility with a 968 square foot
car wash with reduced setbacks based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained
therein.
11. INTRODUCTION
The application is for the redevelopment of a closed gas station with a new ARCO AM/€"
convenience store with gas pumps and car wash. The existing gas station has not been in
operation for several years.
The new facility proposes reconfiguration of the property access from Tamarack Avenue at a
location farther away from the Jefferson Street intersection, revised onsite circulation, parking,
and landscaping.
The property is located in the CommerciaWisitor-Serving Overlay Zone and is therefore subject
to the review and approval of the City Council. The site is also in a deferred certification area of
the Coastal Zone and is subject to review and approval by the California Coastal Commission.
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The proposed project is subject to the following regulations:
A. Neighborhood Commercial Zone (C-1) (Chapter 21.26 of the Carlsbad Municipal
B. Conditional Use Permit Regulations (Chapter 21.42 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code);
Code);
33-
CUP 01-19N 02-03 - ARC0 Ah4PM AT TAMARACK
September 4,2002
Page 2
C. CommerciaWisitor-Serving Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.208 of the Carlsbad
D. Variances (Chapter 21.50 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code); and
E. Mello I1 Segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program.
Municipal Code);
IV. ANALYSIS
The recommendation for approval of this conditional use permit and variance was developed by
analyzing the project’s consistency with the applicable City regulations and policies. The
project’s compliance with each of the above regulations is discussed in detail in the sections
below.
Neighborhood Commercial Zone
The site is designated as a neighborhood commercial site yet it is also located adjacent to the
freeway and is expected to provide freeway facility, commerciaYvisitor-serving related services.
The proposed service station, convenience market and car wash can provide freeway facility,
commercialhisitor-serving services that can also be beneficial services to the neighborhood.
The development standards of the Neighborhood Commercial zone limit building height to 35
feet. There are no building setback requirements for the C-l zone.
The project has been proposed consistent with the C-1 zone development standards in that the
greatest building height is nineteen feet at the comers of the convenience market. The gas pump
canopy is proposed at sixteen feet and the canvash building at fourteen feet.
Conditional Uses
Uses subject to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) are declared to possess characteristics of such
unique and special form as to make impracticable their being included automatically in any land
use class. Automobile service stations which include washing services may be permitted by
conditional use permit in any zone other than residential or professional when it is developed as
part of a freeway service facility. The proposed project and the adjoining restaurant together
qualify as a freeway service facility.
In granting a CUP, certain safeguards to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the
public may be required as conditions of approval. In addition, CUPS may only be granted when
the appropriate findings of fact can be made. Those findings can be made for the proposed
project.
1. The requested use is 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 use is desirable for the community at large and is generally in
harmony with the objectives of the General Plan since the proposed use will replace a
previous freeway service facility. Since the site is separated from other properties in the
area by streets and the project is designed with a low physical profile, it is physically
compatible with the surrounding land uses including the other freeway service facilities,
36
CUP 01-19N 02-03 - ARC0 MM AT TAMARACK
September 4,2002
Page 3
high density housing, single family residential and the elementary school. The adjoining
intersections will continue to function at acceptable service levels.
Data provided to the City indicates that noise generated by the car wash facility will be
below the maximum threshold of 60 dBA at the nearby residential property lines on Carol
Place, but will still be audible. Regardless, approval of the car wash includes a condition
limiting car wash operation to daytime hours between 7:30 am and 9:OO pm.
The canvash may be beneficial to the greater community in that it is designed to treat the
wash water before it is introduced into the storm drain system and if it is used would
reduce pollutants reaching the storm drains. Redevelopment of the site may be more
beneficial to the greater community than retaining the site as an abandoned gas station
both visually and physically because it will include landscaping and a human presence.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the gas pumps
and convenience market without benefit of a variance from the development standards of
the C-1 zone or the CommerciaWisitor-Serving Overlay Zone. The site can also
accommodate the canvash facility within the development standards of the Neighborhood
Commercial zone (C-1) but requires a variance to the CommercialNisitor-Serving
Overlay Zone setback requirements.
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 site will be landscaped consistent with the Carlsbad
Landscape Manual and the guidelines of the CommerciaWisitor Serving Overlay Zone
including minimum six foot width planter areas and planting adjacent to the building.
The street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic
generated by the proposed use. The project will generate approximately 1,863 Average
Daily Traffic (ADT). Tamarack Avenue is a “Collector” street with a capacity of up to
10,000 ADT. Between Jefferson Street and Adams Street, Tamarack Avenue is
constructed to Secondary Arterial standards which increases its car carrying capacity and
is more than adequate to handle the amount of traffic that the proposed project is
expected to generate.
The project is to be developed as part of a freeway-service facility, containing a
minimum of two freeway oriented uses, which are the project and the restaurant on the
adjacent parcel to the east.
CommerciaWisitor Serving Overlay
As a commercial/visitor-serving use, the Planning Commission will first review the project and
make a recommendation to the City Council for action.
Consistent with the procedures of the overlay zone, the applicant completed the pre-filing
requirements and subsequently filed a formal application for review. The pre-filing site plan
reviewed by staff did not include the car wash component. The car wash was added to the site
37
CUP 01-19N 02-03 - ARC0 AMA” AT TAMARACK
September 4,2002
Page 4
plan and the size of the convenience market reduced when the applicant was informed that
alcohol sales at this location was unlikely. The site was posted with a notice that the project
would be considered by the City of Carlsbad.
In addition to the development standards of the C-1 zone, the project is subject to unique
development standards of the commerciavvisitor-serving overlay.
Buildings must be located a minimum of 30 feet from the public street and parking may be
located 20 feet from the public street. The applicant is requesting a variance for reduced
setbacks to accommodate the car wash facility, access to the car wash and parking. (The
findings for granting a variance are discussed under the Variance heading below).
Parking is required at a ratio of one space per 300 square feet of building. The project proposes a
2,997 square foot building and therefore is required to provide ten parking stalls plus three for
employees. A total of fourteen stalls are provided.
Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance section 21.208.100 H.l.(a), new gas stations may only be located
at intersections where at least one of the streets is classified as a prime, major or secondary
arterial on the General Plan. This is the redevelopment of a previously existing gas station and
Tamarack Avenue is improved as a Secondav Arterial from the project site to Adams Street
therefore satisfying the location criterion.
The minimum lot size required for new gas stations is 15,000 square feet with a minimum 150
foot lot frontage along the non-arterial street. Although this is the redevelopment of a previously
existing gas station, the lot length is more than 200 feet and the lot is 36, 927 square feet thereby
satisfying the lot size criterion for new gas stations.
Included in the project exhibits are proposed signs. Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance section
21.208.100 B.l, the maximum allowed sign area for the project is determined by the combined
length of two building sides which face streets multiplied by a factor of 0.9. Therefore, the
project may have up to 109.8 square feet of sign area. The applicant has proposed 174.3 square
feet of sign area for all signs including two monuments. The project has been conditioned to
limit sign area to 109.8 square feet. A separate sign permit is required for the approval of all
signs.
The project is proposed with an “alternative” architectural style. The design is modem. The
design uses a stucco exterior with horizontal reveals and decorative comice at each of the four
comer elements. The colors are off-white and beige. Final approval of the proposed alternative
architectural style is by the Planning Commission and City Council as a part of the Conditional
Use Permit review.
Variance
When practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships, or results inconsistent with the general
purpose of the property zoning result through thc strict and literal interpretation and enforcement
of the development standards of the zone, the Planning Commission has the authority to grant a
variance from the development standard(s) as may be in harmony with its general purpose and
intent, so that the spirit of the development standard(s) shall be observed, public safety and
38
CUP 01-19N 02-03 - ARC0 AM/PM AT TAMARACK
September 4,2002
Page 5
welfare secured and substantial justice done. In the coastal zone, a variance shall not be allowed
to diminish or otherwise adversely affect the substantive requirements for protection of coastal
resources.
The sole purpose of the variance shall be to prevent discrimination, and no variance shall be
granted which would have the effect of granting a special privilege not shared by other property
in the same vicinity or zone.
The applicant has stated that since alcohol sales will not be allowed at this location, a car wash as
well as a convenience store and gas pumps are necessary to generate adequate revenues. There
is a practical difficulty and hardship in locating a canvash along with the convenience market
and gas pumps on this site that is encumbered by CommerciaWisitor-Serving Overlay Zone
setbacks.
The extent of the requested variance includes:
A six foot parking encroachment into the required 20 foot setback at Tamarack Avenue.
A fifteen foot circulation encroachment into the required 20 foot setback at Jefferson Street
A fifteen foot circulation encroachment into the required 20 foot setback at Carol Place.
A fifteen foot building encroachment into the required 30 foot setback at Tamarack Avenue.
A four foot circulation encroachment into the required 10 foot landscape setback at the
south of the Jefferson Street driveway.
interior side property line
In order to grant a variance, the following findings must be made.
1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class
of use in the same vicinity and zone.
2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but which is
denied to the property in question.
3. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the
property is located.
4. That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive general
plan, or in the coastal zone, that the granting of such a variance is consistent with and
implements the requirements of the certified local coastal program and that the granting
of such variance does not reduce or in any manner adversely affect the requirements to
protect coastal resources as specified in the zones included in this title and that the
variance implements the purposes of zones adopted as implementation of the local coastal
program land use plan.
39
CUP 01-19N 02-03 - ARC0 AM/PM AT TAMARACK
September 4,2002
Page 6
There are exceptional circumstances in that the property is part of the CommerciaWisitor
Serving Overlay Zone which properties to the north, west, and south are not. The Overlay zone
has more stringent setback requirements than the underlying Neighborhood Commercial zone or
the surrounding One Family Residential, Two Family Residential, or Residential Density-
Multiple zones. The property is also unique in that it fronts on a public street on three sides
when one or two sides are typical.
Although all properties within the Overlay Zone are subject to the same standards, other
properties in the vicinity and immediately to the north, west and south are not. Other properties
within the overlay zone are the adjacent property to the east, the lot at the southwest comer of
Tamarack Avenue and the 1-5 Freeway and property on the east side of the freeway from
Tamarack Avenue north to Chestnut Avenue making the subject site a peninsula.
The applicant has stated that there are overriding and compelling reasons that the project must
have a car wash and a 2,997 sq. ft. mini market. The applicant states that without both sources of
revenue, the project as a whole will not be profitable.
No coastal resources would be affected by the depth of the setbacks.
Mello I1 Segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program
The project is located in the Mello I1 Local Coastal Program Segment. It is also in a deferred
certification area of the Carlsbad Coastal Zone and is subject to review and approval by the
California Coastal Commission. However the discussion below describes how the project
complies with the applicable Local Coastal Program provisions. The LCP Land Use Plan
designates the subject site for C-1 Neighborhood Commercial uses. Convenience markets with
gas pumps and car wash services are allowed by Conditional Use Permit.
The proposed project will be located at the northeast comer of Tamarack Avenue and Jefferson
Street near the 1-5 freeway. The proposed single story commercial structure is consistent in mass
with the surrounding development of one-story structures to the north and south, two story
apartments to the west and a restaurant to the east. The building will 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. No agricultural uses currently exist on the site, nor are there any
sensitive resources located on the property. The proposed building is not located on an area of
known geologic instability or flood hazard. No public opportunities for coastal shoreline access
are available from the subject site since it is not located between the first public road and the
ocean, and no public access requirements are conditioned for the project. The commercially
designated site is not suited for water-oriented recreation activities.
The subject site is located in the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone, however, due to its
location and the absence of slopes steeper than or equal to 25% inclination andor native
vegetation, additional submittals, standards or requirements do not apply. Construction of the
project will adhere to the City’s Master Drainage Plan, Storm Water Ordinance, Standard Urban
Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) and Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program
(JURMP) to avoid increased urban run off, pollutants and soil erosion.
CUP 01 - 19N 02-03 - ARC0 WM AT TAMARACK
September 4,2002
Page 7
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is the demolition of an existing abandoned gas station and the redevelopment of a
gas station with convenience market and car wash.
No environmental impacts which have not been mitigated by project design have been identified
for the project. Because the site was previously used as a gas station, and it is within an urban
area at the comer of two streets, there is no habitat onsite that may contribute to a preserve
system nor are there any sensitive plant or animal species which must be preserved. No
significant environmental impact can be associated with approval of a reduction in the
ComrnerciaWisitor Serving Overlay Zone public street setbacks. Contaminated soils will be
removed as part of the project site preparation.
The project average daily traffic can be accommodated by the adjoining street improvements.
The access points to the site will be relocated which will create better circulation and access to
the site than the previous design.
The project has also been designed to incorporate all best management practices consistent with
the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Mello I1 segment of the Carlsbad Local
Coastal Program regarding water quality.
Staff has conducted an environmental impact assessment to determine if the project could have a
potentially significant effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Ordinance (Title 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The project
falls within the scope of the City’s MEIR for the City of Carlsbad General Plan update (EIR 93-
01) certified in September, 1994, in which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was
adopted for cumulative impacts to air quality and traffic circulation. MEIRs may not be used to
review projects if certified more than five years prior to the filing of an application for a later
project except under certain circumstances. 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. 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. All feasible mitigation measures identified by the MEIR which are
appropriate to this project have been incorporated into the project.
The Planning Director has therefore issued a Negative Declaration on May 24,2002.
CUP 01-19N 02-03 - ARC0 AM/PM AT TAMARACK
September 4,2002
Page 8
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5221 (Neg Dec)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5222 (CUP)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5223 (V)
Location Map
Background Data Sheet
Local Facilities Impacts Assessment Form
Disclosure Statement
Exhibits “A” - “L” dated September 4,2002
cw:cs
42
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: CUP 01-19N 02-03
CASE NAME: ARCO A"M at Tamarack
APPLICANT: BP West Coast Products LLC. c/o TAIT and Associates Inc.
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the
construction of a new 2.997 sauare foot ARCO AMRM facilitv with 12 fueling stations and a
968 sauare foot car wash and a reauest for reduced setbacks at the north east comer of Tamarack
Avenue and Jefferson Street in Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1 of Tamarack Plaza, in the City of Carlsbad. Countv of
San Diego, State of California. according to map thereof No. 5944. filed in the office of the
Countv Recorder of San Dieeo Countv on Aueust 23. 1967,
APN: 204-292-24-00 Acres: 0.83 Proposed No. of LotslUnits: N/A
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: TravelRecreation Commercial
Density Allowed: N/A Density Proposed: N/A
Existing Zone: C-1 Proposed Zone: C-1
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
Zonine.
Site c-l
North R-2
South R- 1
East c-1
West RD-M-Q
General Plan
T-R
Current Land Use
Abandoned gas station
Fm
RLM
TR
RLM
Multi family residential
Single family residential
Restaurant
Multi family residential
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Unified Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 37.6 EDU
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Negative Declaration, issued Mav 24.2002
0 Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
0 Other,
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: ARC0 AMK" at Tamarack
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 1 GENERAL PLAN: T-R
ZONING: C-1
DEVELOPER'S NAME: BP West Coast Products LLC. c/o TAIT and Associates Inc.
ADDRESS: 9089 Clairemont Mesa Blvd. #300 San Dieno CA 92123
PHONE NO.: 858-278-1 161 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 204-292-24-00
QUANTITY OF LAND USERIEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 0.83 ac: 2.997 sa.A.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = N/A
Library: Demand in Square Footage = N/A
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 36.7
Park: Demand in Acreage = N/A
Drainage: Demand in CFS = 2.96
Identify Drainage Basin = Agua Hedionda
Watershed
Circulation: Demand in ADT = 1,863
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 1
Open Space: Acreage Provided = N/A
Schools: NIA
Sewer: Demands in EDU 36.7
Identify Sub Basin = Vista/Carlsbad
Basin
Water: Demand in GPD = 50 mm
cf4
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Appltcant's sratement or disciosure of cenain ownership interesrs on all appircatlons \vh~;h \viii rC+:;;?
discretionary action on the pan of the Civ Council or any appointed Board. Commission or Commlnee. 1
The following information MUST bc disclosed at the time of appiicarion subm~rral. Your projecr canno;
be reviewed until this infonnation is completed. Please print. ..
Note:
Person is defied as "Any individual, fq co-parmmhip. joint venmc. association. social club. fralem31 organization, corporation. CStBte, mst. receiver, syndicate. in this and any other count?. ciy and counn., clw municipality, dismct or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acring as a unir."
Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entiry of the applicant and properry oumer musf be provided below.
1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent)
..
Provide the COMPLETE.LEGAL names and addresses of persons having a financial
interest in the application. If the applicant includes a cornoration or uartnershie, 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 attached if
necessary.)
Person N/A Corppan ARCO Products Company
Title Title
Address Address 4 Centerpointe Drive La Palma, CA 90623
2.
Provide the COMPLETE, L OWNER (Not the owner's agent)
EGAL names and addresses of persons having any ownership
interest in the properry involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (Le,
partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a
cornoration or Dannershiu, 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 MDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (WA) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-
owned cornoration, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate
page may be attached if necessary.)
Person Saad Attisha Corppan
Title Owner Title
1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad. CA 92008-7314 - (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 @
45
If any person id ‘iled pursuant to (1) or (2) above is Jfil orean~zar~on or 2 WJJC:. i~s: ::::.
names and-addreses of person serving as an officer or director of the non-pros:
organization or as trustee or beneficiv of the.
Nan ProfiVIrust N/A Non Profitlmst
Title Title
Address Address
-
4. Have you had more than S250 worth of business transacted with any member of CI~ staff.
Boards, Commissions, Committees andior Council within the pasr twelve (13) months? 0 Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s):
NOTE: Attach additional sheets ifnecessary.
I cenify that all the above information is me and correct to the best of my knowledge.
\k\ “\id-
Signanue of ownddate Signam; of applicantldate
Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant
r‘, + Lb JJ&?&:: 7J&
Signature of owner/applicant’s agent ifapplicable/datc
Leslie Burnside. Agent
Print or type name of owner/applicant’s agent
H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 Page 2 of 2
44
I ,
I.
i
RECEIVED JUL-31-2001 12:IPPM FROVr614 283 8621 TO-TAlT,AND ASSOCIATES PAQ DO3
IO0 31Vd SUVi~ .tiv llV1-01
TB'd lW101
! I
Wednesday. July 25,2001
Michael Grim, Planner
City of Carisbad - Planning Department
Carlsbad, CA 92008
1635 Faraday Avenue
Subject: Arc0 AMmM at Tamarack
NEC of Tamarack Ave. & Jdenon St.
Carkbad, CA
Re: Letter of Permission
Process EDtitlCmCnt Documents
Dear Mr. Grim:
As applicant for this project, .kc0 Products Company graciously requests your acceptance of this
letter as our granting of permission to Tait and Associates, Inc. to act as our axent in processing
all required applications with the purpose of acquiring all pennits necessary to entitle this
property.
Arc0 Products Company will purchase this property fiom Mr. Saad Attisha contingent on
approval of thc Condition Use P&t. Please. Xyou have any questions, do not hesitate to call
me at (310) 379-6602.
Sincerely,
Arco Emducts Comoanv
Kent Nlen ' u-
Site Acquisitions Manager
CC: L. Bumside, Tait & Associates, Inc
Planning Commission Minutes September 4,2002
3. CUP 01-19N 0203 -ARC0 AMlPM AT TAMARACK- Request for approval of a Negative
square foot ARC0 AMlPM facility with 12 fueling stations and a 968 square foot car wash, and a
Declaration and Addendum, and Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a new 2,997
Variance request for reduced setbacks at the northeast corner of Tamarack Avenue and
Jefferson Street in Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
recommendation to the City Council because the property is located in the Tourist-Serving Overlay. He Mr. Wayne introduced agenda item #3 and stated that the Commission's action would be a
said the presentation would be made by Christer Westman, assisted by Bob Wojcik.
Christer Westman. Senior Planner, stated that the project site was previously a gas station with service
bays. The current project proposal includes new construction for gas pumps, a market, and a car wash.
wash component requires variances from the overlay standards, which are 30-foot setbacks for structures
It is currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, C-1, with a CommercialNisitor-Serving Overlay. The car
and 20-foot setbacks for parking and circulation. T he applicant has proposed a car wash in order t o
this location. Staff has provided the Planning Commission with findings that the site is unique and
recoup projected revenues that they would lose because they have agreed not to have alcohol sales at
constrained to such extent that a variance can be supported.
Mr. Westman outlined the extent of the variance request as follows:
A 6-foot setback variance from Tamarack Avenue for parking;
A 15-foot encroachment into the required 20-foot setback at Jefferson for the circulation onsite south
of Jefferson Street driveway;
A 1 5-foot encroachment into the required 2 0-foot setback at Carol P lace which is the access and
stacking for the car wash;
The applicant originally proposed a 15-foot encroachment into the 30-foot setback along Jefferson for
the car wash but has modified the site plan so now the request is for a 10-foot encroachment into that
There is also a 4-foot circulation encroachment into the required IO-foot landscape setback on the
30-fOOt setback providing 20 feet of landscaping; and
interior side property line.
Jefferson. There is a joint access agreement for the property to the east of the gas station, so there is
Mr. Westman stated there are two access points on the site design, one off Tamarack and one off
shared access to the restaurant there. Staff has included a condition to provide an irrevocable offer for an
easement to allow access from the property to the east to the Jefferson Street access driveway.
The market is located on the northern part of the site, the gas pumps are to the south and the car wash is
located immediately adjacent to the market on the Jefferson street side of the property. There is
screen cars as they move through the access area into the car wash. It will also screen the cars that
landscaping on all three sides and a 42-inch screen wall incorporated into the landscaping that will help to
would be parked along the front of the project near Tamarack and also from Jefferson.
Mr. Westman stated that conditions of the project include a limitation on the hours of operation for the car
wash from 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and a limit on the signage allowed. The signage in the overlay zone is
specifically reviewed as part of the Site Development Plan, or a CUP in this case, and goes to the City
Council as well. There is an Errata Sheet that slightly modifies the language on Condition 12 of Resolution 5222 regarding signage. He said there is a IO-year approval on the gas station, which requires
annual reviews and would require an extension or a renewal of the CUP after 10 years.
Mr. Westman said the site was posted as a public hearing and a notice went out. Comments were
Alicia Lafferty dated August 30, 2002 regarding Part II of the environmental assessment for the project.
received from a neighbor across the street at 815 Tamarack Avenue. He said Staff received a letter from
Mr. Westman summarized Staffs analysis on the questions in each of the following categories:
Land Use and Planning - the site is zoned Neighborhood Commercial and has a
CommercialNisitor-Serving Overlay. The site itself and surrounding properties were considered and
their zoning and the compatibility of those zoning types when the zoning was established by the City
Council.
Planning Commission Minutes September 4,2002 Page 12 . . .
. .
. . .
. . . .
. .
Population and Housing - The project will neither displace existing housing nor will it induce
substantial population growth in the area.
Geologic Problems - There are no unique geologic features of the site. It is not subject to a major
earthquake fault, landslides or erosion. Although there is contaminated soil that will be removed, the
Water - The project will not affect any existing bodies of surface or ground water. Absorption rates
process of removing the soil is not known to create unsafe exposure to people in the community.
onsite will not be reduced as a result of the project because the project was previously developed and
has significant impervious surfaces already. Because the project has been designed with special
catch basins and filters, the water from the gas station and the runoff from the gas station will be
Air Quality - All gas stations are regulated with respect to air quality measures. The determination
treated before being released into the storm drains, preserving water quality.
that the project is not expected to create objectionable odors is based on the project description and
Staffs experience with other gas stations. The level of objectionable odors is somewhat subjective.
TransportationlCirculation - The project ADT as estimated by SANDAG is within acceptable
contribution levels for the surrounding street system. The project will provide all the required parking
onsite and there are public sidewalks and signalized intersections that provide safe access t 0 the
school and areas beyond the project site, assuming sidewalks and crosswalks are used as designed.
endangered plants or animals onsite that will be adversely affected by the project. Mature trees will be
Biological Resources - There are no federal, state, or locally listed endangered or potentially
removed from the site and new trees will be planted.
Energy and Mineral Resources - Although the proposed gas station will sell gasoline, its operation
does not conflict with any adopted energy conservation plan and will not use non-renewable resources
in a wasteful manner based on the information available to Staff.
Hazards - Gas stations are hazardous to some degree; however, they are designed and built with
many safeguards regarding the dispensing of fuel. Therefore, Staff could not make the determination
that the project has a significantly high risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances.
Noise - Based on information provided by the applicant, the project is not expected to significantly
increase existing noise levels or expose people to severe noise levels.
governmental facilities. Existing facilities and services are adequate for the project.
Public Services - The project will not require the addition of new fire, police, schools, or
Aesthetics - Aesthetics are subjective, however, no scenic vista will be affected by the project.
Utilities and Services -The project will not result in the requirement for new systems or supplies.
overspill to neighboring properties. Onsite lighting is required to be reviewed by the Planning Director
Regarding light and glare, a condition regarding onsite lighting requires shielding to m inimize light
prior to the issuance of building permit. The intent is to make sure that the lighting is shielded enough
so that the light is contained as much as possible onsite.
Cultural Resources -There are no archaeological or paleontological resources onsite. Although the
site is within the Carlsbad barrio, there is no evidence that the land use will have a significant effect On any unique cultural values of the site.
Recreational - The project will not increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or affect
existing recreational opportunities within the city.
Lafferty asking why we changed from a recommendation of denial to a recommendation of approval for a
Mr. Westman stated there was a question regarding the original Staff Report that was provided to Alicia
variance. After assessing the project, the Staff Report, and the feedback received from a review and
analysis by several different people within the city, it suggested that maybe we should reconsider because
there was significant evidence that the property is u nique and constrained e nough so that Staff could
support a variance. We took a look at that and essentially changed our mind and found that Staff could
make recommendations to the Planning Commission regarding the findings for supporting the variance.
Mr. Westman said there was also a comment regarding Tamarack. In the General Plan Tamarack is
identified as a collector. One of the location criteria for gas stations in the overlay zone is that one of the
streets needs to be an arterial. Although Tamarack is identified as a collector in the General Plan and
other documents, it has been built to arterial standards from Adams to Jefferson. The reason for that is
that frontage as an arterial street. Staff felt that because the street is improved to arterial standards and
because it serves as a major collecting point for the freeway and has therefore been built and functions for
functions as an arterial that it did meet the location criteria for gas stations.
Planning Commission Minutes September 4,2002 Page 13
Commissioner Baker asked if there were any other things this site could realistically be used for. Mr.
Westman said it would have to be a very small standalone market or possibly a fast-food restaurant
without a drive-through.
Westman replied that it really isn’t large enough for a sit-down restaurant because of parking
Commissioner Baker asked if the site doesn’t lend itself to many uses because of the size of the site. Mr.
requirements. The site is constrained with 30-fOOt setback requirements and would also need a variance.
Commissioner Baker was concerned about the elementary school and asked if any consideration was
given to the access on Jefferson Street. Mr. Wojcik responded that was looked at and they are very well
aware that the school is there. Because of the use of the site as a gas station, tankers need to get in and
just one driveway. Because of the design of the project the driveway was pushed as far to the north as
out, and because of the size of the site, it‘s virtually impossible for that type of circulation to take place with
for that driveway to make sure cars are able to enter and exit.
possible, still allowing a littie stacking distance for vehicles exiting the car wash. There are also standards
Jefferson. Mr. Wojcik said when he was referring to the driveway as far north as possible, that would be
Commissioner Baker asked why it‘s better to have the access north on the property rather than south on
away from the intersection of Tamarack. If the driveway were closer to Tamarack, vehicles exiting don’t
have as much stacking space for cars that m ight be sitting at the s ignal. A Iso, w ith vehicles coming
around the corner they should be far enough away so that they can see approaching vehicles, so if the
driveway was closer to the intersection there would be that possible conflict.
Commissioner Baker asked if there would be justification for insisting it be right turn only coming out of the
site. Mr. Wojcik replied that another thing that the Jefferson driveway serves as is safe access for
vehicles to get back onto Tamarack to get back onto 1-5. It‘s much safer for the vehicles to enter out onto
Jefferson and queue up at the signalized intersection in order to make a safe turn back onto Tamarack.
Westman said there is a limitation on hours of operation from 7:30 a.m. to 900 p.m. so the residents on Commissioner Segall asked what kind of noise mitigation efforts are in place for the car wash. Mr.
Carol aren’t subject to the potential noise 24 hours a day. Information Staff was given from the ARC0
operator shows projected noise levels from the entrance into the car wash to the north, which goes across
Carol towards the existing duplexes, were dropped enough so that the noise level requirements can be
met. There is also a 42” screen wall that goes along Carol primarily for the purpose of visually screening
any cars that might be stacking. That would also help to attenuate some of the noise. The noise
information received from the applicant did not assume any kind of a structure. With the addition of the
wall Staff believes once the noise gets to the other side of Carol Place it will be below the allowance for
noise levels. In the event that there is an issue that comes up, Conditional Use Permits can always come
back to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Segall asked what the precedent is in Carlsbad for limiting hours for car washes, referring
to the one in Poinsettia Village. Mr. Westman replied that he believed that project had a limitation
between 8:OO a.m. and 5:OO p.m. He said he knows that after discussion with other staff members, the
users and operator of that car wash are going to be asking to extend the hours of operation because the
hours don’t offer an opportunity for many people to take advantage of it before or after work. He added
that an advantage of a car wash is that, in trying to protect storm water and water running offsite as much
as possible, the car wash provides a benefit that contains the grimes and oils onsite. Therefore, the more people that can use the car washes, the better it is for water quality.
Commissioner Segall said he has a problem with the car wash hours. There are neighbors right across the street and he thought it was excessive to have it open until 9:00 p.m. and would like to see the evening
hours reduced.
Commissioner White said they saw two different plans for the project and one of them had greatly
upgraded landscaping and wanted to know, if the project is approved, what the means is to ensure that
the landscaping is upgraded so they’re not looking at parked cars and queuing cars. Mr. Westman replied that the conceptual plans that were provided become part of the project record. There has been
discussion at the public hearing regarding the landscaping, so there doesn’t need to be a specific
condition. There is a standard condition that says that a landscape plan must be submitted which
substantially conforms to the conceptual landscape plan. The conceptual landscape plan submitted
sa
Planning Commission Minutes September 4, 2002 Page 14
includes the relocation of the car wash. To increase the landscape along Jefferson, that is the plan that
would be used to assess the final landscape plan. That is reviewed and approved by the Planning
Director as long as it is substantially in conformance with the plans of the Planning Commission and in this
case, the City Council will have reviewed.
Commissioner White wanted an explanation on the City's policy regarding alcohol sales at gas stations
Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) division of the State issues the liquor licenses. There are specific
across the street from elementary schools and if it needs a condition. Ms. Mobaldi responded that the
provisions in the California Business and Professions Code that say that although the City can zone
certain areas to prohibit the sale of alcohol, if in a particular zone such as this one, the sale of off premises
liquor (beer and wine) is allowable and gas stations are allowable, then the City cannot prohibit the
combination of those two (the sale of off premises liquor along with fuel pumps). If a person wanted to sell
which it notifies the City. The police department is allowed to comment on certain issues such as
alcohol at the facility they would have to make application to the ABC. The ABC then has a process by
necessity for the facility, concentration of other places in the area and the police chief makes a
recommendation to the ABC. In summary, the City cannot totally prohibit the sale of alcohol and if they do
allow it, they have to apply various conditions that are provided for in the Business and Professions Code,
such as not advertising the sale of alcohol on the fuel pumps and employee selling alcohol must be over
21 years old. She said in this particular case the applicant has basically agreed that he is not going to
apply for a liquor license, and she doesn't feel it's appropriate to put that condition in the CUP.
said they could put it in, but if they sell the property in the future, the CUP typically runs with the land and
Commissioner Segall asked if they could put it in if the applicant volunteers to allow them to. Ms. Mobaldi
she is not convinced that any agreement by this applicant would bind a future owner in terms of applying
for a license. The legislation specifically says that a local agency cannot prevent or prohibit sale of alcohol
along with gas stations. There may be other issues that may cause the ABC to deny the license but the
City cannot prohibit it if it's allowed in the zone.
Commissioner Segall wanted to know if it makes a difference because it's contiguous with a school. Ms.
Mobaldi said that's not addressed in this legislation that says you cannot prohibit it. There is a school
there, but in this zone the sale of alcohol is not prohibited in commercial facilities and the gas station is not prohibited with the CUP, so those two in combination prevent the City from totally prohibiting it by
ordinance or resolution.
Commissioner Dominguez asked if the applicant could accede to a self-imposed restriction by filing an
affidavit. Ms. Mobaldi said the applicant can definitely agree that he is not going to apply for a liquor
license, but her point was that the CUP runs with the land so if the property is sold any agreement that this
applicant has in terms of a contractual agreement with the City is not going to be binding on the
successor.
Commissioner Baker asked if a second owner came in and when it came time to renew the CUP it could
not necessarily be denied by the City if ABC granted it. Ms. Mobaldi said the CUP couldn't be denied
on recommendation of the police chief, but not merely because the CUP had that condition in it.
because someone wants to sell alcohol there. The license may be denied by the ABC for other reasons
Commissioner Trigas asked if the trade-off (car washlno alcohol) could be tied to the land and the
Commission would have the right to take away the CUP granting of a car wash. Ms. Mobaldi said she
would like to give that more thought before answering, but thinks it's not wise to do a trade-off in the sense
that's the reason the applicant has given why he needs to make this project work with a car wash and has made a representation, which she assumes is a good faith representation. She said once the car wash is approved, it's there, and she didn't think they could deny a future owner the right to sell alcohol on the
premises.
Commissioner Segall asked if the City checked with the Carlsbad Unified School District regarding any
followed standard procedures regarding noticing, posting, and encouraging comments. They received no
concerns they may have with the car wash, gas station, or traffic issues. Mr. Westman replied they
comments.
Kent Allen, 1523 Golden Avenue, Hermosa Beach, 90254, thanked the Staff for their cooperation and help in working with their consultants. He said representatives from Tait Engineering were present with him as well as his co-worker, Craig Yamasaki, who would speak to the beer and wine issue. He said they're very
53
Planning Commission Minutes September 4,2002 Page 15
happy to build the gas station and feel it is an under-served market. He said it's quite a departure for them
was the reason for the car wash. He then introduced Leslie Burnside, who processed the application.
not to have beer and wine at a store and it represents a substantial loss to their potential income and that
wash hours and the condition on signage in the Errata Sheet. Regarding Commissioner Segall's
Leslie Burnside, 9080 Clairemont Mesa Blvd., Suite 300, San Diego, 92123, wanted to address the car
comment concerning 9:00 p.m. for the car wash, she said they really want to work with the community and
believe there is a significant amount of people that would use it afler work. They feel they have
they would like to offer that if the hours could remain as conditioned, they would be willing to address any
adequately addressed the acoustical concerns and know they are subject to an annual review. She said
concerns that may come up in the neighborhood.
Ms. Burnside then addressed Condition No. 12 in Resolution No. 5222 regarding the condition on signage
to 109.8 square feet. She said their original application was 174 square feet and they have come back
and eliminated many of the prototypical type signage that ARCO would like to see in their new generation
of signs. They are down to about the smallest monument sign in their family of signs, which is a
monument sign that's 5'6 tall. In order to address their regulatory needs for posting gasoline prices, they
would like to seek some relief. They were looking at a compromise when they reduced some of the items
and got it down to 141 square feet. It would be the difference between not only posting gasoline prices on
ARCO brand and the car wash identification on the monument sign. She respectfully requested that that
Jefferson, which they are required to do by State Weights and Measures, but also allow them to have their
be reconsidered.
Regarding the use of the freeway service facility next door, Ms. Burnside showed a photograph depicting
the current sign at the restaurant. The restaurant and gas station together represent a freeway service facility. Squid Joe's is the name of the restaurant and the prior use for the top sign was for a Texaco and
the sign face has been covered. They were looking for the opportunity to change the face out and have
an ARCO sign there. The Squid Joe sign is roughly 7' by 20'. From a relative standpoint the Texaco sign
proportion would look odd being about one third the size of the Squid Joe sign. Even from an aesthetics
is approximately 8' by 15'. If they were to go down to 50 square feet, she thought the balance and
standpoint they were hoping for some reconsideration and maybe just a change out of the face.
Commissioner Dominguez asked how much of the 109.8 square feet is required by Weights and
want it to be visible to people on both streets. There's a balance that needs to be met with regulatory
Measures. Ms. Burnside replied they have certain conditions about the size of the numeral fonts; they
needs and trademark identifications.
Commissioner Dominguez asked when Weights and Measures count their requirement, is it for both faces
and what percentage of the 109 square feet that is. Ms. Burnside said that's a one side calculation and
probably about 30-40 percent of the signage is the gasoline portion.
wanted to change out the upper sign from Texaco to ARCO AMIPM. Chairperson Trigas confirmed that
Commissioner White asked for clarification on what they want done with the sign. Mr. Allen replied they
they're asking to use the upper sign and swap it with ARCO AMIPM.
Commissioner Segall asked them to show what size they are required to have now. Ms. Burnside said the
talking about an 8' by 15' so one of the concerns was the balance. condition per the Errata was a 50 square foot sign and showed what that would look like. She said they're
Commissioner Segall asked how they would feel about voluntarily putting in a condition stating they would
not serve alcoholic beverages.
Craig Yamasaki, Zoning and Development Manager for the Global Alliance BP ARCO, 4 Center Pointe. La
Palma. 90623 said he appreciated the exposition of the issues brought forward by the Assistant City
Attorney. He said they had interviewed and discussed issues of concerns with various City Council people
and beer and wine was an issue. Given the proximity to the school and in spite of the fact that their
general rule is that they do want to have beer and wine as items for sale, they felt that in this unusual
circumstance it would be appropriate not to sell beer and wine at this location. They felt this was their way
of demonstrating to the community, immediate area, and the city at large their commitment to doing site- specific things. He was happy to stipulate that as part oft heir C UP they would not bring forward an
Planning Commission Minutes September 4,2002 Page 16
application for the sale of beer and wine on this property. He said they’re asking for consideration in terms
of the car wash hours to the degree that they can be provided latitude in terms of visibility. It was
extraordinarily difficult to get approval from their management at AMlPM without beer and wine. He said
they’re trying to do their best to show management that a project can work when it has other components
in it and hopes they will be given the latitude to bring forth the best project for the city and the company.
Commissioner Baker asked if he was able to work out the traffic concerns that the principal of Jefferson
had. Mr. Yamasaki pointed out the proximity of the driveway for the elementary school to their driveway
Jefferson, traffic could easily route itself back out on Tamarack. He said he explained to the principal that on Jefferson. He said their onsite circulation was such that if there was an abounding traffic conflict at
the peak traffic times for ARC0 AMlPM are between 7:OO and 9:00 a.m. and 5:OO and 7:OO p.m. Although
she said there is a spike in traffic in the morning hours, because it was over a one-hour period of time of
when school ends in the 2:OO-3:00 p.m. timeframe.
parents dropping off their children, it was much less problematic than the gridlock that occurs on Jefferson
Commissioner Baker asked if being in such close proximity to an elementary school poses any unique
problems for a retail operation, such as kids flooding in the store at 2:30. Mr. Yamasaki said he has
developed about 14 or 15 AMIPM’s directly across the street from elementary, junior high, and high
schools. He tells the people in the communities and neighbors that he’s approaching that he views them
as his children - if his kid is not behaving, here’s my home phone number. The feedback over the years
indicates the area where they have more problems is when they’re in closer proximity to high schools.
Those problems are specific to high school students cutting class and going across the street to get a
candy bar between classes, and the potential traffic impacts that occur. That‘s something that can be
sure that we are responsive. He said they have a strict no loitering policy and work with the schools and
handled from an operations standpoint and we keep close contact and liaison with the schools to make
he vows to the principal that she has his home number. In his experience they have never had a problem
being in close proximity to an elementary school.
Regarding the hours of operation for the car wash, Commissioner Baker asked if they keep the hours as
with the operations or rely on people who make complaints and deal with them. Mr. Yamasaki said he
they are and if there’s a problem later, would they reach out to the community to see if they’re satisfied
would like to think that they’re not that controversial and went on record to say his home phone number is
(949) 640-0082 and told people on Staff or in the neighborhood who were present if there is a problem
regarding noise and that sort of thing, the buck stops here. He said he’s a full-service 24/7 real estate
representative for his company. He said he agrees it‘s unlikely that people will be getting their car washed
at that time of the evening, but if they do and if it‘s a problem and neighbors are being disturbed by that he
thinks it‘s reasonable for staff to call him or his colleague, Kent Allen, and tell them they’re having a
problem with that. He said they’re willing to stipulate as part of the CUP that if it does become a problem
for the community they will address it.
Commissioner Baker asked how the bigger sign complies with the recently passed Sign Ordinance. Ms.
they felt, particularly from the standpoint of the state’s weights and measures obligation to post the prices,
Burnside replied that the 109 square foot sign would be compatible with the current ordinance. She said
that they would like to seek some relief in the form of a variance to get it closer to the 141 square feet so
they could properly address their gasoline prices and brand from both street frontages.
Commissioner Segall asked what size they’re asking for on the pole sign. Ms. Burnside said they were
not able to pull record plans on the actual sign and they’re willing to get better information about the actual
Texaco sign may be in the neighborhood of 8 tall and 15’ wide. Mr. Yamasaki added that their typical
size of it. She said the restaurant owner told them the Squid Joe sign was 7’ by 20’. They believe the
freeway identification sign would be 250 square feet. Although he realized it‘s a stretch from the standpoint of the new sign code, they’re asking for something that makes it possible for people to identify
freeway.
their facility when traveling at a high rate of speed on the highway and have ample time to exit the
would be above what is allowed, and asked if they asking for an additional 13 square feet in other signage. Chairperson Trigas said according tot he code their total s ignage would be 1 09.8. Just this one sign
Ms. Burnside said as she understands it, the errata was issued today as a result of some discussions they
had with Staff regarding the possible use of that portion of the sign on the restaurant parcel. In our
Planning Commission Minutes September 4,2002 Page 17
interpretation we believe that that really represents a second issue, like a freeway service facility scenario versus the signage we're allowed under the Commercial zone for the property zone itself.
Ms. Mobaldi stated that there is no variance for the sign regulation pending before the Planning
this will have to go to City Council and if they want to apply for a variance, it could probably be heard by
Commission. Staff hasn't had an opportunity to comment on that and make a recommendation. She said
the City Council at the time they review the project. Mr. Yamasaki apologized for taking up the
Commission's time on the issue when it wasn't germane at this time and said they would be happy to
comply with that.
Commissioner Segall said it is germane because they have to make a decision on a resolution. M r.
Wayne said the resolution is consistent with code. When they did the sign ordinance they felt they complied with the state's rules and regulations regarding pricing signs. He said he thinks they want to put
extra things on that sign and need more room to do that and that creates a problem because it's not
consistent with the ordinance and a variance is not before the Commission. H e said he's not sure a
variance is appropriate at this point, so he advised to table the entire discussion since it's going on to the
City Council.
alcoholic beverages will be sold onsite. Ms. Mobaldi stated that she was not convinced that would bind a
Commissioner W hitton wanted to be sure that t he applicant agrees to a condition in the CUP that no
successor and tends to think it would not if it were challenged. She thought the representation from this
owner could be relied upon.
Alicia Lafferty. 815 Tamarack Avenue, Carlsbad expressed concern that the addition of a fourth gas
station will h ave a I arge negative impact on the neighborhood. H er concerns included the safety and security of c hildren attending Jefferson Elementary School and St. Patrick's School due to increase in
traffic, short walk lights, and no crossing guards along Tamarack. Ms. Lafferty said that it appears the
exits of Las Flores. Cannon Road, Poinsettia Lane, and La Costa that have hardly any freeway services.
neighborhood is turning into the dumping ground for all of Carlsbad's gas stations and cited the freeway
She questioned how Tamarack Avenue could have been upgraded from a collector street to a secondary
arterial in just one month without any public discussion or actual roadwork, stating that the appearance of
assess the environmental impacts on this site or the neighborhood and strongly opposes the construction
improper influence is being raised. She stated that she does not feel due diligence was done to accurately
of another fueling station at the corner of Jefferson Street and Tamarack Avenue. She asked that the
Council reject the Planning Department's request for this gas station and hopes that another commercial
residential community.
use would be investigated that is more compatible with an elementary school and the surrounding
talked about the traffic congestion on Jefferson between 7:OO and 8:30 a.m. and voiced concern about
Gregory Herman, 7 10 Anchor W ay, C arlsbad, stated his family owned a h ome there since 1 983. H e
safety of the children because of the tankers coming in, the noise coming from the car wash, and only one
crossing guard. He said that the car wash will be an attraction for little boys and he didn't see a proposal
for a fence or wall around it. He was also concerned about the ocean and the water, and the recycling
they're going to do with the water. He asked the Commissioners to go there between 7:OO and 8:OO a.m.
to see the traffic before making a decision. He also questioned the need for another gas station and
another car wash.
Ralph Kalfayan, I010 Second Avenue, Suite 1750, San Diego, stated he is an attorney at law and was
requested to speak on behalf of Dr. Artie Sternberg. who resides at 3156 Harding Avenue and was
present at the meeting. His points of concern included the traffic patterns that will be created by the gas
station on that corner; it will be difficult for people to go to the ocean and difficult for parents to go to the elementary school. He said that safety is a material concern because he thinks that type of site is going to
attract a bad element and crime might be a factor. He said he could think of several other uses that the
site could be used for such as a small office building or small apartment complex, although he didn't have
studies to back up what he was saying. He said they should keep in mind that ARC0 AMlPM serves fast
food. He said that environmental issues are obvious with the additional petroleum and potential
hazardous waste.
track every number you could possibly imagine and one of the numbers that they track is how much it
In response to the point about the tankers adding to traffic congestion, Mr. Allen stated that oil companies
Planning Commission Minutes September 4, 2002 Page 18
costs to deliver a gallon of gas to a gas station. He said he happens to know that it's about 8/10 of a cent
and that ARCO is leading all the competition. If a driver gets on the site and has to wait 20 minutes, that
20 minutes a day over the course of a year adds up to weeks. It is their single largest expense. He said
they track their deliveries by computer so they can get the driver on and off the site as fast as possible. It
also creates a disruption for ARCO while he's on the site, so they try to schedule deliveries for certain
times when they can get on and off the site as fast as they possibly can.
Mr. Yamasaki added that if there is a concern that proves there is a traffic conflict occurring in the morning
hours, they would be happy to work with Staff to come up with operation hours for delivery outside of the
morning hours. He said he believes that the people who spoke in opposition of their project are sincere in
their beliefs, but the discussion he had with the principal is not consistent w ith the comments he j ust
heard. He said they worked on the project for over two years and received a rigorous evaluation from
traffic standards. Staff has been fastidious and painstaking in their deliberations and the recommendation
for approval of the use permit did not come easily. They've worked very hard with Staff to come up with
something they believe will be a safe and effective station and a welcome addition to the neighborhood.
Chairperson Trigas asked what is the normal delivery time in places where there is heavy traffic at 7:OO-
8:OO a.m. Mr. Yamaski said they take into consideration the idiosyncrasies of the site-specific issues of
the location. There are instances where they might run out of fuel and they would want the latitude to
bring tanker trucks in. Given the proximity to the school and traffic patterns, their drivers know the importance of safety with respect to driving a vehicle with large amounts of fuel. The culture of British
ARCO, the entire top management structure loses their bonus for the year. Every measure is taken to
Petroleum is extraordinarily safety conscious and if a person is injured or killed in the I ine of work at
ensure that safety is of tantamount importance in every aspect of the operation.
Chairperson Trigas asked if there is a way to comfortably deal with the neighbors, the traffic, and the
as human beings within a corporation. He said if there's a problem, he vowed to address it.
school. Mr. Yamasaki said he holds himself personally accountable and there is simply decent behavior
Commissioner Segall asked him to address the issue of safety around the car wash and that young
people may try to walk in there. Mr. Yamasaki said they have a strict no loitering policy on their facility.
Generally, there is an array of 8 to 14 cameras on the site that are visible to people who are in operations
onsite at all times. If there is a situation where there's loitering or things occurring, it's visible to them and will take action. They don't want the liability of accidents.
Commissioner Segall asked what they have around the gas station itself or the car wash to keep young
42 screen wall along Carol Place and pointed it out on the drawing. She said there isn't any kind of
people from going in and if there's a wall around Carol and Jefferson. Ms. Burnside replied that there is a
obstruction at the end of the tunnel that will prevent anyone who really wants to from going in there. The
reason they don't put doors on the tunnel is because people tend to get a feeling of claustrophobia when
they're inside and they would not want to bar the exit.
Mr. Yamasaki proposed that they be allowed to post a sign that says, "Caution - School Children" on the
west side of Jefferson Street for cars exiting the site. They could arrange to have a blinking yellow light
attached to it.
Chairperson Trigas closed public testimony.
Responding to the zoning issue that was brought up, Mr. Wayne stated that the site is zoned C-I, but is
probably improperly zoned, and it has been a problem for awhile because it's designated TravellService.
area of deferred certification. In other words, we're not issuing the coastal permit for this project, even
It was designated TravellRecreation in 1994 and when we tried to get coastal permit authority, this was an
though we have permit authority all the way around it. That's because it has C-I zoning. These people
there will be a TravellService use on there. They will not approve anything else, that's why they didn't give
have to go to the Coastal Commission for a Coastal Permit and the Coastal Commission fully expects that
us certification of our Local Coastal Program there. The code that implements travellservice deals with
hotels, motels, restaurants and service stations by conditional use permit. Apartments and offices are not
they do not want to see offices in tourist-serving commercial areas because it's a priority use in the coastal
allowed. The office issue was the reason the Coastal Commission did not accept our C-1 zoning because
57
Planning Commission Minutes September 4,2002 Page 19
zone. This site is not very b ig and you're essentially faced with a hotel, motel, restaurant, or service
station.
Commissioner Baker asked Mr. Westman to reiterate the issue of Tamarack being a collector or
secondary as brought up by Ms. Lafferty. Mr. Westman said the comment was made that the street is
identified as a collector in the General P Ian and other documents. T he Staff Report states that for a
section of that road, it is built to the standard of an arterial and functions as an arterial. It's not been
redesignated in any official fashion, but it serves as and is improved as an arterial and therefore, Staff felt
that the gas station location criteria could be met.
Commissioner Baker asked if it causes any conflicts with our own rules because it's not officially
designated as an arterial. Mr. Wayne responded that he didn't think so. It was an arterial and there was
quite a bit of citizen outcry to have it ultimately improved in its entire length as an arterial, so there was a
decision to downgrade it to collector status. When it was constructed, it was constructed in this area as
an arterial because of the freeway interchange, so it has served as an arterial so it's an easy interpretation
to make. There was never any intent when the Tourist Serving Overlay was drafted to say all these gas
stations are gone.
Chairperson Trigas wanted to hear the legal aspect regarding if it's not officially designated, is there a
problem even if it serves as one. Ms. Mobaldi said she didn't think there is a problem because what Staff
is saying is that as Tamarack continues west it is a collector, but at this point it is functioning as an arterial,
so rather than split the designation, they have given it the designation that represents the majority of the
street. In this particular area I think it's a legitimate interpretation that it is functioning as an arterial, it's
improved to arterial width and that goes along with the intent of having a gas station there where they
know there's going to be a higher volume of traffic.
Commissioner Heineman commented that he was quite sure there was a school in the same location as
the station, which was quite busy, and didn't recall any problems having the school and filling station in the
the present Jefferson School when the previous station was at that location. He said he used to patronize
same location, but there was no car wash.
Commissioner Segall asked if the wall is adequate from a safety standpoint because of the kids. Mr.
Westman replied that one might talk about the relative height of the wall to the children's age and their
height. He said a 42 wall is relatively tall to a 42 tall child.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Baker and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5221, 5222 and 5223
recommending adoption of a Negative Declaration and Addendum and
recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit CUP 01-19, and Variance V
02-03 for the construction of a new 2,997 square foot ARC0 AMlPM facility with a
968 square foot car wash with reduced setbacks based on the findings and
subject to the conditions contained therein, including the Errata Sheet concerning
signs.
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Segall wanted to address the time for delivery of product and said he thinks it needs to be
wall needs to be higher. He wanted clarification on the pole signs and if they conform to the existing code.
restricted from the time students are coming to school and the end of the day. He said he also thinks the
a consensus from the Commission.
He also wanted to address the hours of operation for the car wash going until 9:00 p.m. and wanted to get
Commissioner Dominguez asked what mechanism was used to allow the restaurant to trade out the sign.
Mr. Wayne responded that the pole sign is a legal non-conforming sign. A freeway service station facility
abandoned for over 5 years. The new ordinance talks about abandonment of signs. The restaurant didn't
has to be adjacent to the freeway and that has created a problem. There is an existing sign that has been
abandon the sign; it changed owners. It was drafted into the new sign ordinance that they could take the
58
Planning Commission Minutes September 4,2002 Page 20
non-conforming sign and change out the name as long as they don't structurally alter it. This is a different
feet.
issue so they need to apply for a variance to utilize that pole sign and put up a sign larger than 50 square
Commissioner White said she would like to see the project conditioned so that tankers are not making
deliveries when school is in session, she would like to see the wall higher around the car wash. She said
she's not bothered by a 9:00 cutoff for the car wash.
Commissioner Dominguez thought the wall should be to the maximum height, not only for protection from
intrusion by children, but also to mitigate some of the noise that's obviously going to emanate from the
operation of the car wash. The combination of landscaping and higher wall would serve the area well in
mitigation of noise. He said the car wash hours don't bother him but suggested it be reviewed in 90 days
see something done with the site because it's a terrible eyesore, and thinks that ARCO runs a good clean
by Staff to see if there are any complaints or problems as a result of those hours. He said he would like to
operation and are good partners in the community.
Commissioner Heineman said his concerns are similar and added that it should be specified in some way
that the tankers never go along the extremely crowded street in front of the school.
Commissioner Whitton said he shares the other Commissioners' concerns and would particularly like to
see the Caution sign with the yellow light and would like the wall higher. Regarding the hours of operation
of the car wash and the hours that tankers are to come and go, he said he would take ARCO at their word
as being responsible citizens and adjust their schedule according to what the need is going to be after a
period of usage.
Commissioner Baker agreed that the wall should be made higher, and the caution sign with the light would
be great. She didn't think there was a need to make a condition on the delivery hours because the
Commission has recourse if there are problems and she also takes them at their word that it's in their
business interest to get in and out quickly. She commented on the amount of gas stations in that area
and that intersection is an embarrassment to the City of Carlsbad, how horrible the cover over the Texaco
sign looks, and the cell site is even worse. She said even though it would be preferable not to have
another gas station it will be nice to get the area cleaned up.
Chairperson Trigas was concerned about the tanker deliveries but said that could be addressed with the
CUP if it's a problem. She said she feels comfortable with the 9:00 pm car wash time and that could be
reassessed if there are problems. She agreed that the wall should be made higher.
Mr. Wayne stated that the object of the wall is to provide safety as well as a noise barrier and it may make
more sense to move it 5 feet off the property and accomplish the same thing and provide more space.
the Planning Director.
Staff would recommend that the wall be 6 feet and the design and placement subject to the satisfaction of
Commissioner Baker asked who maintains the green belt if the wall is moved 5 feet off the property line.
Mr. Wayne replied that the applicant would maintain it.
Commissioner Dominguez said he walks that area and noticed that the intersection is kind of wide and the
pedestrian crossing timing light is not very pedestrian friendly. It's not possible to make it across the street
without hitting a good portion of the flashing red. He suggested the engineers take a look at that.
Chairperson Trigas commented that she felt comfortable that the school was very much noticed and that
the principal obviously felt satisfied that her issues were resolved.
Commissioner Segall said he wanted to make sure the condition on selling alcohol is in there. He
recapped that the majority of the Commissioners feel nothing needs to be added on delivery and the hours
are fine. So it's just increasing the wall to the satisfaction of the Planning and inserting the condition on
selling alcohol.
Ms. Mobaldi said her recommendation is that if they say anything about alcohol to say that the applicant
has stipulated not to serve alcohol.
59
Planning Commission Minutes September 4,2002 Page 21
Commissioner Dominguez said he would like to accept the applicant's offer to install the caution sign.
Chairperson Trigas said that would be something the City has to work with. Ms. Mobaldi said it could be
required by the City as a safety sign and wouldn't be included in their sign allowance.
a sign required by a government entity for safety purposes, such as through a condition or some
Mr. Wayne added that they don't want the applicant to put it up on their own, because it does count. If it's
subsequent action, it would not necessarily count towards their total sign area.
Commissioner White asked if the Commission should condition it to make it easier for them if this is what
we want. M s. M obaldi said she thought they have the authority to recommend that the Traffic Safety
Commission take a look at that based on what they heard this evening, but they shouldn't make it the
applicant's responsibility because that would be part of their signage. She suggested that Mr. Johnson
talk about the best way to approach this.
Jefferson Street is in compliance with the CalTrans Traffic Manual for a school zone and there's really no Bob Johnson, Deputy City Engineer, Transportation Division, said the signage in the public right-of-way on
additional signage that is needed in that school zone. Putting more signs on a road doesn't make it a
better or safer situation. It would have to be real clear if the sign they're offering is intended to remind
drivers exiting the site, then there is the issue of square footage and cutting into their sign allocation.
Commissioner Whitton said he understood that the sign was going to be on ARCO's property and was
there for safety purposes. Mr. Johnson said that was his interpretation also and then it becomes an issue
of allocation of square footage of signage and what types of signs they want on their property.
Ms. Mobaldi suggested they defer this along with their other signage issues and they can take a closer
look at it with Staff.
as a condition of a permit, he believes there is an exemption in the Sign Ordinance for that, signs required Mr. Wayne stated the Sign Ordinance does not regulate the message so if we want to put up a safety sign
wouldn't be that type; this is only for those people exiting the business because it would be a high volume
by a government entity. Mr. Johnson talked about the legal signs in the right-of-way for traffic safety. This
driveway adjacent to a school. Before City Council we need to take a look at the signage issue, both the
amount and the variance request for the bigger pole sign, and this issue that was offered. We may end up
at the City Council recommending that no sign whatsoever be added to that driveway because sometimes
more signs cause more problems than fewer signs, as Mr. Johnson said.
voluntarily agreed not to sell alcohol.
Commissioner Whitton said he understood that the CUP would have a condition in it that the applicant
and the applicant has stipulated no liquor sales.
Mr. Wayne said it sounds like they're adding two or three new conditions - the increased height in the wall
Chairperson Trigas asked for an amendment to the motion.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION:
and to add the following conditions: The applicant stipulates there will be no Motion by Commissioner Baker and duly seconded to amend the original motion
alcohol sales on the premises; the back wall be increased to six feet and the
height, design and, placement of the wall will be to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
VOTE: 7-0-0
AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Segall, White, and Whitton
ABSTAIN:
NOES: None
None
DISCUSSION
Planning Commission Minutes September 4,2002 Page 22
Commissioner Segall commented that he supports the motion and because of
the constraint with three streets. he would support the variance.
VOTE: 7-0-0
AYES: White, and Whitton
Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, Segall.
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
None
None
City of Carlsbad Mayor's Office
Awn. Mr. Bud Lewis and
Ciry of Carlsbad City Council
12m Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: ARC0 AM PM Fuel Facility at Tamarack
City of Carlsbad, Planning Department Report Case File: CUP 01 . 19/V 02-03
Date:7-2542
Dear Sis;
T am a concerned parent with children attending Jefferson Elementary School. 1 am opposed
to the construction of a gas station across the street from the school.
The security of our very young children that walk to school every day will be adversely
affected. This additional gas station will only make traffic worse, and getting to and from the
school that much more dangerous for the children.
The City Council should reject-this proposal for a gas station at the corner of Jefferson Street
and Tamarack Avenur. I hope that the Council can-investiiate a more appropriate
commercial use, campotible with an elementary school across the street, and the surrounding
residcnrial community.
address: /
__ September 2002
City of Carlsbad Mayor’s Office
Attn. Mr. Bud Lewis and
City of Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: ARC0 AM I” Fuel Facility at Tamarack
City of Carlsbad, Planning Department Report Case File: CUP 01 - 19/V 02-03
Date:7-25-02
Dear Sirs;
I am a concerned parent with children attending Jefferson Elementary School. I am opposed
to the construction of a gas station across the street from the school.
The security of our very young children that walk to school every day will be adversely
affected. This additional gas station will only make traffic worse, and getting to and from the
school that much more dangerous for the children.
The City Council should reject this proposal for a gas station at the corner of Jefferson Street
and Tamarack Avenue. I hope that the Council can investigate a more appropriate
commercial use, compatible with an elementary school across the street, and the surrounding
residential community.
Sincerely,
Attention Parents and Neighbors of Jefferson Elementary School:
Re: ARCO AM PM Fuel Facility at Tamarack
City of Carlsbad, Planning Department Report Case File: CUP 01 - 19/V 02-03 Date:7-25-02
WE NEED YOUR HELP AND SUPPORT!
On 4 September 2002 the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission unanimously approved the Atlantic
Richfield Company proposal to construct an ARCO gasoline station, “mini-market” and car wash at the
corner of Jefferson Street and Tamarack Avenue, directly across the street from Jefferson Elementary School.
The final hurtle for the gas station project is approval by the Carlsbad City Council. The Mayor, and four
additional board members, will approve this proposal unless parents like yourself take initiative and write a
letter protesting this development. The addition of a fourth gas station, will have a large negative impact on
the neighborhood, as well as the 720 students in attendance at Jefferson, for the following reasons:
Our Children’s Safety: The security of our very young children that walk to school every day will be
adversely affected. The school is a pedestrian campus with a population of very young children, while
the gasoline station, “mini-market” and car wash target adults in vehicles. Most of the gas station
clientele will be from the freeway, with no concern for our children, or any connection to the school or
neighborhood.
Increased Traffic: This additional gas station will only make traffic worse, and getting to and from the
school that much more dangerous for the children. ‘TI
B
Liquor and Cigarette Sales: There is no guarantee that ARCO and the City of Carlsbad will restrict
the sale of liquor and cigarettes.
Increased Noise: The gas station will be open 24 hours/7days a week, only adding to the noise already
generated by the three existing gas stations and freeway.
Air Quality: Another gas station will only compound the already poor air quality being generated by
the adjacent freeway traffic.
Neighborhood: This would make the eighth gas station within 3/4 of a mile (10 blocks), surrounding
the freeway.
0 Use of an Outdated Environmental Report: The planning report states that there will be no impact
on the surrounding environment in 14 out of 16 areas. Furthermore, the Planning Commission is using
a 1994 Environmental impact statement. Use of a more current environmental report seems justified.
Dangers: This is the type of establishment popular with vagrants.
HOW CAN YOU HELP? Write letters to the City Council of Carlsbad notifying the Council that they
should not approve this proposal for a gasoline station across the street from the Jefferson Elementary
School. The Jefferson Elementary School community should state their opposition to this hazardous project,
adjacent to the school. A sample letter is written on the back of this page.
Write to: City of Carlsbad Mayor’s Office
Attn. Mr. Bud Lewis and
City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
coutcom9
17 September 2002
Alicia May Lafferty
815 Tamarack Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760)434-3873
18 September 2002
City of Carlsbad Mayor’s Office
Attn. Mr. Bud Lewis and
City of Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: ARC0 AM PM Fuel Facility at Tamarack
City cf Carlsbad, P!aaning Department R.eprt Case File: CUP 01 - 19!V 02-0?
Date:7-25-02
Dear Mr. Lewis and Council members;
I am a concerned parent with a kindergartner attending Jefferson Elementary School. I am
opposed to the construction of a gas station across the street from the school.
The security of our very young children that walk to school every day will be adversely
affected. This additional gas station will only make traffic worse, and getting to and from the
school that much more dangerous for the children.
The City Council should reject this proposal for a gas station at the corner of Jefferson Street
and Tamarack Avenue. I hope that the Council can investigate a more appropriate
commercial use, compatible with an elementary school across the street, and the surrounding
residential community.
Sincerely,
cc: California Coastal Commission, City of Carlsbad Planning Department, Carlsbad
Planning Commission, Principal Jefferson Elementary School, Jefferson Elementary PTA,
Superintendent Carlsbad Unified Schools
ALL RECENED
4 October 2002
City of Carlsbad Mayor’s Office
Attn. Mr Bud Lewis and
City of Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Re: ARC0 AM/PM Fuel Facility at Tamarack
city ofcarlsbad, Planning Department Report Case File: CW 01-19N 02-03
Date 1/25/02
ALL RECEIVED
4 October 2002
City of Carlsbad Mayor’s OEce
Attn. Mr Bud Lewis and
City of Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Re: ARC0 AM/PM Fuel Facility at Tamarack
City of Carlsbad, Planning Department Report Case File: CUP 01-19N 02-03
Date 7/25/02
Dear Sirs:
I am a concerned resident located next to the proposed Am Pm gas station. I am opposed
to the construction of a gas station across the street from the elementary school for
several reasons.
First, there are already 3 service stations located at three corners of Tamarack Avenue.
Second, the security of the young children that walk to school everyday will be adversely
affected. Third, adding another gas station with a Car Wash will make traffic worse and
dangerous for children. Fourth, Tamarack Avenue is considered a collector street and not
an arterial street that can handle the increased traffic flow. Fifth, the increased noise
level created by the car wash on a daily basis to me as a resident and my fellow neighbors
across from the proposed service station and car wash is going to be very annoying and
disturbing.
The City Council should reject this proposal for a gas station at the corner of Jefferson
and Tamarack Ave. I hope the council can investigate a more suitable commercial use
that can work better with an elementary school across the street and the surrounding
resident. sdvl
Chris Vrabel
763 Magnolia Ave
Carlsbad, CA 92008
10 October 2002
City of Carlsbad Mayor’s Ofice
Attn. Honorable Bud Lewis and
City of Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Re: ARC0 Ah4i€“ Fuel Facility at Tamarack
City of Carlsbad, Planning Department Report Case File: CUP 01-19N 02-03
Date 7/25/02
Dear Sirs:
I am a concerned resident located close to the proposed Am Pm gas station. I am
opposed to the construction of a gas station across the street from the elementary school
for several reasons.
First, there are already 3 service stations located at three comers of Tamarack Avenue.
Second, the security of the young children that walk to scbool everyday will be adversely
affected. Third, adding another gas station with a Car Wash will make traffic worse and
dangerous for children, Fourth, Tamarack Avenue is considered a collector street and not
an arterial street that can handle the increased traffic flow. Fifth, the increased noise
level created by the car wash on a daily basis to me as a resident and my fellow neighbors
across from the proposed service station and car wash is going to be very annoying and
disturbing.
The City Council should reject this proposal for a gas station at the corner of Jefferson
and Tamarack Ave. I hope the council can investigate a more suitable commercial use
that can work better with an elementary school across the street and the surrounding
resident.
Sincerely,
10 October 2002
City of Carlsbad Mayor's Ofice
Attn. Honorable Bud Lewis and
City of Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Re: ARC0 AM/€" Fuel Facility at Tamarack
City of Carlsbad, Planning Department Report Case File: CUP 01-19N 02-03
Date 7/25/02
Dear Sirs:
I am a concerned resident located close to the proposed Am Pm gas station. I am
opposed to the construction of a gas station across the street from the elementary school
for several reasons.
First, there are already 3 service stations located at three comers of Tamarack Avenue.
Second, the security of the young children that walk to school everyday will be adversely
affected. Third, adding another gas station with a Car Wash will make traffic worse and
dangerous for children. Fourth, Tamarack Avenue is considered a collector street and not
an arterial street that can handle the increased traffic flow. Fifth, the increased noise
level created by the car wash on a daily basis to me as a resident and my fellow neighbors
across from the proposed service station and car wash is going to be very annoying and
disturbing.
The City Council should reject this proposal for a gas station at the comer of Jefferson
and Tamarack Ave. I hope the council can investigate a more suitable commercial use
that can work better with an elementary school across the street and the surrounding
resident.
Sincerely,
10 October 2002
City of Carlsbad Mayor’s Office
Attn. Honorable Bud Lavis and
City of Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Re: ARC0 AM/PM Fuel Facility at Tamarack
City of Catlsbad, Planning Department Report Case File: CUP 01-19N 02-03
Date 7/25/02
Dear Sirs:
I am a concerned resident located close to the proposed Am Pm gas station. I am
opposed to the construction of a gas station across the street from the elementary school
for several reasons.
First, there are already 3 service stations located at three corners of Tamarack Avenue.
Second, the security of the young children that walk to school everyday will be adversely
affected. Third, adding another gas station with a Car Wash will make traffic worse and
dangerous for children. Fourth, Tamarack Avenue is considered a collector street and not
an arterial street that can handle the increased traffic flow. Fifth, the increased noise
level created by the car wash on a daily basis to me as a resident and my fellow neighbors
across from the proposed service station and car wash is going to be very annoying and
disturbing.
The City Council should reject this proposal for a gas station at the corner of Jefferson
and Tamarack Ave. I hope the council can investigate a more suitable commercial use
that can work better with an elementary school across the street and the surrounding
resident.
Sincerely,
10 October 2002
City of Carlsbad Mayor's
Attn. Honorable Bud Lewis and
City of Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Re: ARC0 AM/PM Fuel Facility at Tamarack
City of Carlsbad Planning Department Report Case File: CUP O1-19N 02-03
Date 7/25/02
Dear Sirs:
I am a concerned resident located close :o the proposed Am Pm gas station. I am
opposed to the construction of a gas station across the street from the elementary school
for several reasons.
First, there are already 3 service stations located at three comers of Tamarack Avenue.
Second, the security of the young children that walk to school everyday will be adversely
affected. Third, adding another gas station with a Car Wash will make traffic worse and
dangerous for children. Fourth, Tamarack Avenue is considered a collector street and not
an arterial street that can handle the increased traffic flow. Fifth, the increased noise
level created by the car wash on a daily basis to me as a resident and my fellow neighbors
across from the proposed service station and car wash is going to be very annoying and
disturbing.
The City Council should reject this proposal for a gas station at the comer of Jefferson
rad Tamarack Ave. I hope the council can investigate a more suitable commercial use
that can work better with an elementary school across the street and the surrounding
resident. n
Sincerely,
10 October 2002
City of Carlsbad Mayor's Ofice
Attn. Honorable Bud Lewis and
City of Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Re: ARC0 AM&" Fuel Facility at Tamarack
City of Carlsbad, Planning Department Report Case File: CUP 01-19N 02-03
Date 7/25/02
Dear Sirs:
I am a concerned resident located close to the proposed Am Pm gas station. I am
opposed to the construction of a gas station across the street from the elementary school
for several reasons.
First, there are already 3 service stations located at three comers of Tamarack Avenue.
Second, the security of the young children that walk to school everyday will be adversely
affected. Third, adding another gas station with a Car Wash will make traffic worse and
dangerous for children. Fourth, Tamarack Avenue is considered a collector street and not
an arterial street that can handle the increased traffic flow. FiRh, the increased noise
level created by the car wash on a daily basis to me as a resident and my fellow neighbors
across f?om the proposed service station and car wash is going to be very annoying and
disturbing.
The City Council should reject this proposal for a gas station at the corner of Jefferson
and Tamarack Ave. I hope the council can investigate a more suitable commercial use
that can work better with an elementary school across the street and the surrounding
resident.
Sincerely,
10 October 2002
City of Carlsbad Mayor’s OEce
Attn. Honorable Bud Lewis and
City of Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Re: ARC0 AM/PM Fuel Facility at Tamarack
City of Carlsbad, Planning Department Report Case File: CUP 01-19N 02-03
Date 7/25/02
Dear Sirs:
I am a concerned resident located close to the proposed Am Pm gas station. I am
opposed to the construction of a gas station across the street from the elementary school
for several reasons.
First, there are already 3 service stations located at three comers of Tamarack Avenue.
Second, the security of the young children that walk to school everyday will be adversely
affected. Third, adding another gas station with a Car Wash will make traffic worse and
dangerous for children. Fourth, Tamarack Avenue is considered a collector street and not
an arterial street that can handle the increased traffic flow. Fifth, the increased noise
level created by the car wash on a daily basis to me as a resident and my fellow neighbors
across from the proposed sewice station and car wash is going to be very annoying and
disturbing.
The City Council should reject this proposal for a gas station at the corner of Jefferson
and Tamarack Ave. I hope the council can investigate a more suitable commercial use
that can work better with an elementary school across the street and the surrounding
resident.
Sincerely,
10 October 2002
City of Carlsbad Mayor’s Ofice
Attn. Honorable Bud Lewis and
City of Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Re: ARC0 AM/PM Fuel Facility at Tamarack
City of Carlsbad, Planning Department Report Case File: CUP 01-19N 02-03
Date 7/25/02
Dear Sirs:
I am a concerned resident located close to the proposed Am Pm gas station. I am
opposed to the construction of a gas station across the street from the elementary school
for several reasons.
First, there are already 3 service stations located at three comers of Tamarack Avenue.
Second, the security of the young children that walk to school everyday will be adversely
affected. Third, adding another gas station with a Car Wash will make traffic worse and
dangerous for children. Fourth, Tamarack Avenue is considered a collector street and not
an arterial street that can handle the increased traffic flow. Fifth, the increased noise
level created by the car wash on a daily basis to me as a resident and my fellow neighbors
across from the proposed service station and car wash is going to be very annoying and
disturbing.
The City Council should reject this proposal for a gas station at the corner of Jefferson
and Tamarack Ave. I hope the council can investigate a more suitable commercial use
that can work better with an elementary school across the street and the surrounding
resident.
Sincerely,
10 October 2002
City of Carlsbad Mayor's Office
Attn. Honorable Bud Lewis and
City of Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Re: ARC0 AMA" Fuel Facility at Tamarack
City of Carlsbad, Planning Department Report Case File: CUP 01-19N 02-03
Date 7/25/02
Dear Sirs:
I am a concerned resident located close to the proposed Am Pm gas station. I am
opposed to the construction of a gas station across the street from the elementary school
for several reasons.
First, there are already 3 service stations located at three corners of Tamarack Avenue.
Second, the security of the young children that walk to school everyday will be adversely
affected. Third, adding another gas station with a Car Wash will make trac worse and
dangerous for children. Fourth, Tamarack Avenue is considered a collector street and not
an arterial street that can handle the increased traffic flow. Fifth, the increased noise
level created by the car wash on a daily basis to me as a resident and my fellow neighbors
across from the proposed service station and car wash is going to be very annoying and
disturbing.
The City Council should reject this proposal for a gas station at the corner of Jefferson
and Tamarack Ave. I hope the council can investigate a more suitable commercial use
that can work better with an elementary school across the street and the surrounding
resident.
Sincerely,
10 October 2002
City of Carlsbad Mayor’s Office
Attn. Honorable Bud Lewis and
City of Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Re: ARC0 AM/€” Fuel Facility at Tamarack
City of Carlsbad, Planning Department Report Case File: CUP 01-19N 02-03
Date 7/25/02
Dear Sirs:
I am a concerned resident located close to the proposed Am Pm gas station. I am
opposed to the construction of a gas station across the street from the elementary school
for several reasons.
First, there are already 3 mice stations located at three comers of Tamarack Avenue.
Second, the security of the young children that walk to school everyday will be adversely
affected. Third, adding another gas station with a Car Wash will make traflic worse and
dangerous for children. Fourth, Tamarack Avenue is considered a collector street and not
an arterial street that can handle the increased traffic flow. Fiff h, the increased noise
level created by the car wash on a daily basis to me as a resident and my fellow neighbors
across from the proposed service station and car wash is going to be very annoying and
disturbing.
The City Council should reject this proposal for a gas station at the corner of Jefferson
and Tamarack Ave. I hope the council can investigate a more suitable comercisl use
that can work better with an elementary school across the street and the surrounding
resident.
Sincerely,
10 October 2002
City of Carlsbad Mayor’s
Attn. Honorable Bud Lewis and
City of Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Re: ARC0 AMPM Fuel Facility at Tamarack
City of Carlsbad, Planning Department Report Case File: CUP 01-19N 02-03
Date 7/25/02
Dear Sirs:
I am a concerned resident located close to the proposed Am Pm gas station. I am
opposed to the construction of a gas station across the street from the elementary school
for several reasons.
First, there are already 3 service stations located at three comers of Tamarack Avenue.
Second, the security of the young children that walk to school everyday will be adversely
affected. Third, adding another gas station with a Car Wash will make trafiic worse and
dangerous for children. Fourth, Tamarack Avenue is considered a collector street and not
an arterial street that can handle the increased trafiic flow. Fifth, the increased noise
level created by the car wash on a daily basis to me as a resident and my fellow neighbors
across from the proposed service station and car wash is going to be very annoying and
disturbing.
The City Council should reject this proposal for a gas station at the comer of Jefferson
and Tamarack Ave. I hope the council can investigate a more suitable commercial use
that can work better with an elementary school across the street and the surrounding
resident.
Sincerely,
10 October 2002
City of Carlsbad Mayor’s Office Am. Honorable Bud Lewis and
City of Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Re: ARC0 AM/PM Fuel Facility at Tamarack
City of Carlsbad, Planning Department Report Case File: CUP 01 -19N 02-03
Date 7/25/02
Dear Sirs:
I am a concerned resident located close to the proposed Am Pm gas station. I am
opposed to the construction of a gas station across the street from the elementary school
for several reasons.
First, there are already 3 service stations located at three comers of Tamarack Avenue.
Second, the security of the young children that walk to school everyday will be adversely
affected. Third, adding another gas station with a Car Wash will make traffic worse and
dangerous for children. Fourth, Tamarack Avenue is considered a collector street and not
an arterial street that can handle the increased traflic flow. Fifth, the increased noise
level created by the car wash on a daily basis to me as a resident and my fellow neighbors
across from the proposed service station and car wash is going to be very annoying and
disturbing.
The City Council should reject this proposal for a gas station at the comer of Jefferson
and Tamarack Ave. I hope the council can investigate a more suitable commercial use
that can work better with m elementary school across the street and the surrounding
resident.
Sincerely,
10 October 2002
City of Carlsbad Mayor's
Attn. Honorable Bud Lewis and
City of Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Re: i\RCO AM/€" Fuel Faciiity at Tamarack
City ofcarlsbad, Planning Department Repon Case File: CUP 01-19N 02-03
Date 7125102
Dear Sirs:
I am a concerned resident located close $.? ;he proposed Am Pm gas station. I am
opposed to the construction of a gas ctarion across the street from the elementq school
for several reasons.
First, there are already 3 service stations located at three comers of Tamarack Avenue.
Second, the security of the young children that walk to school everyday will be adversely
affected. Third, adding another gas station with a Car Wash will make trailic worse and
dangerous for children. Fourth, Tamarack Avenue is considered a collector street and not
an arterial street that can handle the increased traffic flow. Fifth, the increased noise
level created by the car wash on a daily basis to me as a resident and my fellow neighbors
across from the proposed service station and car wash is going to be very annoying and
disturbing.
The City Council should reject this proposal for a gas station at the corner of Jefferson
and Tamarack Ave. I hope the council can investigate a more suitable commercial use
that can work better with an elementary school across the street and tne surrounding
resident.
Sincerely,
IO October 2002
City of Carlsbad Mayor's
Attn. Honorable Bud Lewis and
City of Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Re: ARC0 MM Fuel Facility at Tamarack
Citv ofcarlsbad, Planning Department Report Case File: CUP 01-19N 02-03
Date 7125102
Dear Sirs:
I am a concerned resident located close to the proposed Am Pm gas station. I am
opposed to the construction of a gas station across the street from the elementary school
for several reasons.
First, there are already 3 service stations located at three comers of Tamarack Avenue.
Second, the security of the young children that walk to school everyday will be adversely
affected. Third, adding another gas station with a Car Wash will make traffic worse and
dangerous for children. Fourth, Tamarack Avenue is considered a collector street and not
an arterial street that can handle the increased traffic flow. Fifth, the increased noise
level created by the car wash on a daily basis to me as a resident and my fellow neighbors
across from the proposed service station and car wash is going to be very annoying and
disturbing.
The City Council should reject this proposal for a gas station at the comer of Jefferson
2nd Temxsck AVP. I hope the council can investigate a more suitable commercial use
that can work better with an elementary school across the street and the surrounding
resident.
Sincerelv.
10 October 2002
City of Carlsbad Mayor's Oflice
Attn. Honorable Bud Lewis and
City of Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad. Ca 92008
Re: "ARC0 AM&" Fuel Facility at Tamarack
City of Carlsbad, Planning Department Report Case File: CUP 01-19N 02-03
Date 7/25/02
Dear Sis:
I am a concerned resident located close to the proposed Am Pm gas station. I am
opposed to the construction of a gas station across the street from the elementary school
for several reasons.
First, there are already 3 service stations located at three corners of Tamarack Avenue.
Second, the security of the young children that walk to school everyday will be adversely
affected. Third, adding mother gas station with a Car Wash will make traffic worse and
dangerous for children. Fourth, Tamarack Avenue is considered a collector street and not
an arterial street that can handle the increased traffic flow. Fifth, the increased noise
level created by the car wash on a daily basis to me as a resident and my fellow neighbors
across from the proposed service station and car wash is going to be very annoying and
disturbing.
The City Council should reject this proposal for a gas station at the comer of Jefferson
and Tamarack Ave. I hope the council can investigate a more suitable commercial use
that can work better with an elementary school across the street and the surrounding
resident.
i
Sinc
10 October 2002
City of Carlsbad Mayor's Ofice
Ann. Honorable Bud Lewis and
City of Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Re: ARC0 A"M Fuel Facility at Tatnarack
City of Carlsbad, Planning Department Report Case File: CUP 01-19N 02-03
Date 7/25/02
Dear Sirs:
I am a concerned resident located close to the proposed Am Pm gas station. I am
opposed to the construction of a gas station across the street fiom the elementary school
for several reasons.
First, there are already 3 service stations located at three corners of Tamarack Avenue.
Second, the security of the young children that walk to school everyday will be adversely
affected. Third, adding another gas station with a Car Wash will make traffic worse and
dangerous for children. Fourth, Tamarack Avenue is considered a collector street and not an arterial street that can handle the increased traffic flow. Fifth, the increased noise
level created by the car wash on a daily basis to me as a resident and my fellow neighbors
across from the proposed service station and car wash is going to be very annoying and
disturbing.
The City Comcil should reject this proposal for a gas station at the corner of Jefferson
and Tamarack Ave. I hope the council can investigate a more suitable commercial use
that can work better with an elementary school across the street and the surrounding
resident.
10 October 2002
City of Carlsbad Mayor's Ofice
Attn. Honorable Bud Lewis and
City of Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Re: ARC0 AM/PM Fuel Facility at Tamarack
City of Carlsbad, Planning Department Report Case File: CUP 01-19N 02-03
Date 7/25/02
Dear Sirs:
I am a concerned resident located close to the proposed Am Pm gas station. I am
opposed to the construction of a gas station across the street fiom the elementary school
for several reasons.
First, there are already 3 service stations located at three comers of Tamarack Avenue.
Second, the security of the young children that walk to school everyday will be adversely
affected. Third, adding another gas station with a Car Wash will make traffic worse and
dangerous for children. Fourth, Tamarack Avenue is considered a collector street and not an arterial street that can handle the increased traffic flow. Fifth, the increased noise
level created by the car wash on a daily basis to me as a resident and my fellow neighbors
across from the proposed service station and car wash is going to be very annoying and
disturbing.
The City Council should reject this proposal for a gas station at the corner of Jefferson
and Tamarack Ave. investigate a more suitable commercial use
that can work better school across the street and the surrounding
resident.
10 October 2002
City of Carlsbad Mayor’s
Attn. Honorable Bud Lewis and
City of Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Re: ARC0 MM Fuel Facility at Tamarack
City of Carlsbad, Planning Department Report Case File: CUP 01-19N 02-03
Date 7/25/02
Dear Sirs:
I am a concerned resident located close to the proposed Am Pm gas station. I am
opposed to the construction of a gas station across the street from the elementary school
for several reasons.
First, there are already 3 service stations located at three corners of Tamarack Avenue.
Second, the security of the young children that walk to school everyday will be adversely
affected. Third, adding another gas station with a Car Wash will make traffic worse and
dangerous for children. Fourth, Tamarack Avenue is considered a collector street and not
an arterial street that can handle the increased traffic flow. Fifth, the increased noise
level created by the car wash on a daily basis to me as a resident and my fellow neighbors
across from the proposed service station and car wash is going to be very annoying and
disturbing.
The City Council should reject this proposal for a gas station at the corner of Jefferson
and Tamarack Ave. I hope the council can investigate a more suitable commercial use
that can work better with an elementary school across the street and the surrounding
resident.
Sincerely,
10 October 2002
City of Carlsbad Mayor’s OBce
Attn. Honorable Bud Lewis and
City of Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Re: ARC0 MM Fuel Facility at Tamarack
City of Carlsbad, Planning Department Report Case File: CUP 01-19N 02-03
Date 7/25/02
Dear Sirs:
I am a cowerned resident located close to the proposed Am Pm gas station. I am
opposed to the construction of a gas station across the street from the elementary school
for several reasons.
First, there are already 3 service stations located at three comers of Tamarack Avenue.
Second, the security of the young children that walk to school everyday will be adversely
affected. Third, adding another gas station with a Car Wash will make traffic worse and
dangerous for children. Fourth, Tamarack Avenue is considered a collector street and not
an arterial street that can handle the increased traffic flow. Fifth, the increased noise
level created by the car wash on a daily basis to me as a resident and my feilow neighbors
across from the proposed service station and car wash is going to be very annoying and
disturbing.
The City Council should reject this proposal for a gas station at the corner of Jefferson
and Tamarack Ave. I hope the council can investigate a more suitable commercial use
that can work better with an elementary school across the street and the surrounding
resident.
Sincerely,
10 October 2002
City of Carlsbad Mayor’s Ofice
Ann. Honorable Bud Lewis and
City of Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Re: ARC0 AMPM Fuel Facility at Tamarack
City of Carlsbad, Planning Department Report Case File: CUP 01-19N 02-03
Date 7/25/02
Dear Sirs:
I am a concerned resident located close to the proposed Am Pm gas station. I am
opposed to the construction of a gas station across the street from the elementary school
for several reasons.
First, there are already 3 service stations located at three corners of Tamarack Avenue.
Second, the security of the young children tht walk to school everyday will be adversely
affected. Third, adding another gas station with a Car Wash wiII make trafKc worse and
dangerous for children. Fourth, Tamarack Avenue is considered a collector street and not
an arterial street that can handle the increased traffic flow. Fifth, the increased noise
level created by the car wash on a daily basis to me as a resident and my fellow neighbors
across from the proposed service station and car wash is going to be very annoying and
disturbing.
The City Council should reject this proposal for a gas station at the comer of Jefferson
and Tamarack Ave. I hope the council can investigate a more suitable commercial use
that can work better with an elementary school across the street and the surrounding
resident.
10 October 2002
City of Carlsbad Mayor's
Attn. Honorable Bud Lewis and
City of Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad. Ca 92008
Re: ARC0 A"M Fuel Facilitv at Tamarack
City ofcarisbad. Planning Department Report Case File: CUP 01-19N 02-03
Date 7125102
Dear Sirs:
1 am a concerned resident located close to the proposed Am Pm gas station. I am
opposed to the construction of a gas station across the street from the elementary school
for several reasons.
First, there are already 3 service stations located at three comers of Tamarack Avenue.
Second, the security of the young children that walk to school everyday will be adversely
affected. Third, adding another gas station with a Car Wash will make traffic worse and
dangerous for children. Fourth, Tamarack Avenue is considered a collector street and not
an arterial street that can handle the increased traffic flow. Fifth, the increased noise
level created by the car wash on a daily basis to me as a resident and my fellow neighbors
across from the proposed service station and car wash is going to be very annoying and
disturbing.
The City Council should reject this proposal for a gas station at the corner of Jefferson
and Tamarack Ave. I hope the council can investigate a more suitable commercial use
that can work better with an elementary school across the street mnd the %z~iiad.hg
resident
10 October 2002
City of Carlsbad Mayor's
Attn. Honorable Bud Lewis and
City of Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Re: ARC0 A"M Fuel Facility at Tamarack
City of Carlsbad. Planning Department Report Case File: CUP 01-19N 02-03
Date 7/25/02
Dear Sirs:
I am a concerned resident located close IO the proposed Am Pm gas station. I am
opposed to the construction of a gas station across the street from the elementary school
for several reasons.
First, there are already 3 service stations located at three comers of Tamarack Avenue.
Second, the security of the young children that walk to school everyday will be adversely
affected. Third, adding another gas station with a Car Wash will make traffic worse and
dangerous for children. FouIth, Tamarack Avenue is considered a collector street and not
an arterial street that can handle the increased traffic flow. Fifth, the increased noise
level created by the car wash on a daily basis to me as a resident and my fellow neighbors
across from the proposed service station and car wash is going to be very annoying and
disturbing.
The City Council should reject this proposal for a gas station at the corner of Jefferson
acd Tamar3ck Ave. I hope the council can investigate a more suitable commercial use
that can work better with an elementary school across the street and the surrounding
resident.
Sincerely,
10 October 2002
City of Carlsbad Mayor’s ORce
Attn. Honorable Bud Lewis and
City of Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Re: ARC0 AM/PM Fuel Facility at Tamarack
City of Carlsbad, Planning Department Report Case File: CUP 01-19N 02-03
Date 7/25/02
Dear Sirs:
I am a concerned resident located close to the proposed Am Pm gas station. I am
opposed to the construction of a gas station across the street ftom the elementary school
for several reasons.
First, there are already 3 service stations located at three corners of Tamarack Avenue.
Second, the security of the young children that walk to school everyday will be adversely
affected. Third, adding another gas station with a Car Wash will make traffic worse and
dangerous for children. Fourth, Tamarack Avenue is considered a collector street and not
an arterial street that can handle the increased traffic flow. Fifth, the increased noise
level created by the car wash on a daily basis to me as a resident and my fellow neighbors
across fiom the proposed service station and car wash is going to be very annoying and
disturbing.
The City Council should reject this proposal for a gas station at the corner of Jefferson
and Tamarack Ave. I hope the council can investigate a more suitable commercial use
that can work better with an elementary school across the street and the surrounding
resident.
Sincerely, n
10 October 2002
City of Carlsbad Mayor’s Office
Attn. Honorable Bud Lewis and
City of Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Re: ARC0 AM/PM Fuel Facility at Tamarack
City of Carlsbad, Planning Department Report Case File: CUP 01-19N 02-03
Date 7/25/02
Dear Sirs:
I am a concerned resident located close to the proposed Am Pm gas station. I am
opposed to the construction of a gas station across the street from the elementary school
for several reasons.
First, there are already 3 service stations located at thrw comers of Tamarack Avenue.
Second, the security of the young children that walk to school everyday will be adversely
affected. Third, adding another gas station with a Car Wash will make traffic worse and
dangerous for children. Fourth, Tamarack Avenue is considered a collector street and not
an arterial street that can handle the increased traffic flow. Fifth, the increased noise
level created by the car wash on a daily basis to me as a resident and my fellow neighbors
across from the proposed service station and car wash is going to be very annoying and
disturbing.
The City Council should reject this proposal for a gas station at the comer of Jefferson
and Tamarack Ave. I hope the council can investigate a more suitable commercial use
that can work better with an elementary school across the street and the surrounding
resident.
ALL RECEIVED
10 October 2002
City of Carlsbad Mayor's
Attn. Mr Bud Lewis and
City of Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Re: ARC0 AM/€" Fuel Facility at Tamarack
City of Carlsbad, Planning Department Report Case File: CUP 01-19N 02-03
Date 7/25/02
Dear Sirs:
I am a concerned resident located close to the proposed Am Pm gas station. I am
opposed to the construction of a gas station moss the street from the elementary school
for several reasons.
First, there are already 3 service stations located at three comers of Tamarack Avenue.
Second, the security of the young children that walk to school everyday will be adversely
affected. Third, adding another gas station with a Car Wash will make traffic worse and
dangerous for children. Fourth, Tamarack Avenue is considered a collector street and not an arterial street that can handle the increased trafiic flow. Fifth, the increased noise
level created by the car wash on a daily basis to me as a resident and my fellow neighbors
across from the proposed service station and car wash is going to be very annoying and
disturbing.
The City Council should reject this proposal for a gas station at the corner of Jefferson
and Tamarack Ave. I hope the council can investigate a more suitable commercial use
that can work better with an elementary school across the street and the surrounding
resident.
Sincerely,
Alicia May Lafferty
815 Tamarack Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760)434-3873
11 October 2002
Cindee Hollingsworth
Secretary to the City Manager
City of Carlsbad Office of City Manager
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Case File: CW 01 - 19/V 02-03
Arc0 AM PM Fuel Facility at Tamarack
Dear Ms. Hollingsworth,
‘Thank you for meeting me on such short notice yesterday In your offlce. I appreciate you keeping me abreast oi
the City Council Public Hearing date, concerning the above referenced project..
Count me in on the 5 November 2002 City Council agenda, protesting the approval of yet another gas station in
our neighborhood. As a concerned mother, with a child attending kindergarten at Jefferson Elementary School,
the addition of a fourth gas station, directly across the street from the school, will have a large negative impact on
the neighborhood
Jefferson Elementary School, I feel that there is no better time to address the issue of neighborhood safety.
After yesterday afternoon’s apprehension of a burglary suspect on Tamarack Avenue and the “lock down” at
Another gas station here will surly entice additional strangers to the area that have no connection to our
neighborhood, or concern for the welfare of our children.
I have also enclosed a letter that I have been passing out to our neighbors, with a sample letter to the Mayor’s
Office and City Council. Many of our Jefferson parents are concerned, and hopefully the letters will get the City
that would be a great help, I have enclosed a copy of the sample letter in English and in Spanish. I hope that we
thinking harder about neighborhood safety. If you or anyone you know could also write to the Mayor’s Office,
can invoke a positive change.
Thank you again for your help, and please contact me if you have any questions at 760/434-3873
Alicia May Lafferty \ U
damVCH1
..
Attention Parents and Neighbors of Jefferson Elementary School:
Re: ARCO AM PM Fuel Facility at Tamarack
City of Carlsbad; Planning Department Report Case File: CUP 01 - 19/V 02-03 Date:7-25-02
WE NEED YOUR HELP AND SUPPORT!
On 4 September 2002 the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission unanimously approved the Atlantic
Richfield Company proposal to construct an ARCO gasoline station, “mini-market” and car wash at the
corner of Jefferson Street and Tamarack Avenue, directly across the street from Jefferson Elementary School,
The final hurtle for the gas station project is approval by the Carlsbad City Council. The Mayor, and four
additional board members, will approve this proposal unless parents like yourself take initiative and write a
letter protesting this development. The addition of a fourth gas station, will have a large negative impact on
the neighborhood, as well as the 720 students in attendance at Jefferson, for the following reasons:
Our Children’s Safety: The security of our very young children that walk to school every day will be
adversely affected. The school is a pedestrian campus with a population of very young children, while
the gasoline station, “mini-market” and car wash target adults in vehicles. Most of the gas station
clientele will be from the freeway, with no concern for our children, or any connection to the school or
neighborhood.
Increased Traffic: This additional gas station will only make traffic worse, and getting to and from the
school that’ much more dangerous for the children.
Liquor and Cigarette Sales: There is no guarantee that ARCO and the City of Carlsbad will restrict
the sale of liquor and cigarettes.
Increased Noise: The gas station will be open 24 hourd7days a week, only adding to the noise already
generated by the three existing gas stations and freeway.
Air Quality: Another gas station will only compound the already poor air quality being generated by
the adjacent freeway traffic.
Neighborhood: This would make the eighth gas station within 3/4 of a mile (10 blocks), surrounding
the freeway.
Use of an Outdated Environmental Report: The planning report states that there will be no impact
on the surrounding environment in 14 out of 16 areas. Furthermore, the Planning Commission is using
a 1994 Environmental impact statement. Use of a more current environmental report seems justified.
Dangers: This is the type of establishment popular with vagrants.
fl
HOW CAN YOU HELP? Write letters to the City Council of Carlsbad notifying the Council that they
should not approve this proposal for a gasoline station across the street from the Jefferson Elementary
School. The Jefferson Elementary School community should state their opposition to this hazardous project,
adjacent to the school. A sample letter is written on the back of this page.
Write to: City of Carlsbad Mayor’s Office
Attn. Mr. Bud Lewis and
City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
cor.rco,no
17 September 2002
- September 2002
City of Carlsbad Mayor’s Office
Attn. Mr. Bud Lewis and
City of Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: ARC0 AM PM Fuel Facility at Tamarack
City of Carlsbad, Planning Department Report Case File: CUP 01 - 19/V 02-03
Date:7-25-02
Dear Sirs;
I am a concerned parent with children attending Jefferson Elementary School. I am opposed
to the construction of a gas station across the street from the school.
The security of our very young children that walk to school every day will be adversely
affected. This additional gas station will only make traffic worse, and getting to and from the
school that much more dangerous for the children.
The City Council should reject this proposal for a gas station at the corner of Jefferson Street
and Tamarack Avenue. I hope that the Council can investigate a more appropriate
commercial use, compatible with an elementary school across the street, and the surrounding
residential community.
Sincerely,
your name:
address:
.. L
Atenci6n Padres v Vecinos de Jefferson Elementarv School:
Re: ARCO AM PM Fuel Fadty at Tamarack
City of Carlsbad, Planning Department Report Case File: CUP 01 - 19/V 02-03 Date: 7-25-02
iNECESCITAMOS SU AYTJDA Y APOYO! El dia 4 de septiembre la Comisi6n de Planificaci6n
de la ciudad de Carlsbad aprob6 la propuesta de una sfiper gasolinera en la esquina de las calles
Jeffferson y la avenida Tamarack. El agregar la cuarta gasolinera en el vecindario tendrii un
impacto negativo en nuestros niiios que atienden a la escuela Jefferson.
Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) ha propuesto una gasolinera, tienda y lavado de autos en enfrente de la
escuela Jefferson Elementary. La Wma aprobacion para esta gasolinera es la del ayuntamiento de la dudad
de Carlsbad. Este proyecto representa un problema y amenaza a la poblacion de la escuela y viviendas
cercanas por las seentes razones:
La seguridad de nuestros niiIos: La seguridad de nuestros niiios que caminan en frente de este
establecimiento seri afectado negativamente. La escuela es un campo peatonal con una poblad6n de
niiios muy joven, mientras que la gasolinera, tienda y lavado de autos se enfoca a adultos en vehiculos.
Sobre todo la clientela de la gasolinera vendri dt la autopista, sin ninguna preocupacion de que si hay
nirios o no, o si existe una escuela cercana para tener precaucion a1 manejar por ahi.
El trafico aumentara: Esta gasolinera adicional aumentara el trafico, y va hacer mas peligroso el ir y
venir a la escuela para 10s nizios.
Vendimia de Licor y Cigarros: La compaiiia ARCO esta en negociadones con la ciudad para poder
vender licor y cigarros en la tienda.
Aumento de mido: La gasolinera estari abierto las 24 horas del dia y aumentara el mido mucho
durante el &a cuando estan 10s estudiantes en la escuela.
Calidad del Aire: Otra estacion de gasoha empeorara la calidad de aire que ya esti mal a causa de estar
tan cercas de la autopista.
Vecindad: Esta gasolinera seria la octava gasolinera en menos de una milla, junto della autopista,
alrededor de nuestra vecindad.
El estudio sobre el medio ambiente vencido: El reportaje del depahmento de planificacion indica
que no habri impacto negativo en 14 de 16 categorias, incluyendo agua, mido, peligros, estetica, etc.,
pero este reportaje esta basado sobre un estudio de 1994 que esta vencido. Necesitan hacer otro estudio
mis corriente.
Peligros: Este tip0 de establecimiento es frecuentado por la vagancia.
&OM0 PUEDE AYUDAR USTED? Escribiendo una carta al ayuntamiento de la Ciudad de Carlsbad
expresando su oposicion a este peligroso proyecto. Un ejemplo de la carta se encuentra a1 reverso de la
pbgina. ..
Escriba a: City of Carlsbad Mayor's Office
Attn. Mr. Bud Lewis and
City of Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
1. -.
- Septiembre 2002
City of Carlsbad Mayor's Office
Am. Mr. Bud Lewis and
City of Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad. CA 92008
Re: ARC0 AM PM Fuel Facility at Tamarack
City of Carlsbad, Planning Department Report Case File: CUP 01 - 19/V 02-03
Date: 7-25-02
A quien corresponda;
Soy un'padre de familia con nixios que atienden la esquela Jefferson Elementary. Estoy en contra.de
la construccion de la gasolinera cmzando la calle de la esquela.
La seguridad de nuestros nixios que caminan en frente de este establecimiento seri afectado
negativamente. Esta gasolinera adicional aumentara el trafico, y va hacer mas peligroso el ir y venk a
la escuela para 10s nifios.
El ayuntaniento debe rechatar esta propuesta para otra gasolinera en la esquina de la calle Jefferson y
la avenida Tamarack. Espero que el ayuntamiento pueda investigar un us0 mas apropiado para un
sitio tan cercas de una esquela y casas residenciales.
Sinceramente.
Su nombre:
Su direction:
Alicia May Laffeny
815 Tamarack Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760)434-3873
21 October 2002 ALL RECEIVED
City of Carlsbad Mayor’s Office
Atm. Mr. Claude A. Lewis
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: ARCO AM PM Fuel Facility at Tamarack
City of Carlsbad, Planning Department Report Case File: CUP 01 - 19/V 02-03
Dear Mayor Lewis;
I am concerned with the City Planning Commission’s avid approval of the gas station, mini market and car wash,
and at the corner of Jefferson Street and Tamarack Avenue. Some of the comments made at the 2002 Carlsbad
Council Candidates Forum, on 18 October 2002, are relevant to the above referenced project, and warrant
additional review by your office, and the City Council before the public hearing on 5 November 2002.
Jefferson Elementary School, I feel that there is no better time to address the issue of neighborhood safety. I
After the apprehension of a burglary suspect on Tamarack Avenue on 10 October 2002, and the “lock down” at
applaud the police officers for their good work in apprehending the suspect, but realize that this is not an isolated
incident, Another gas station here will surly entice additional strangers to the area that have no connection to
our neighborhood, or concern for the welfare of our children. I urge you and the City Council to re-evaluate the
approval of this gas station for the safety of our neighborhood, and especially our 730 children attending Jefferson
Elementary School across the street.
All of the candidates at the 18 October forum, noted that they welcome the “quality of life” that has been realized
during your many terms in office. On the other hand, adding an ARCO at the corner of Jefferson Street and
Tamarack Avenue will hurt the “quality of life” of this neighborhood. Downtown Carlsbad has seven existing
gas stations within 3h of a mile (10 blocks), surrounding the freeway, At what point are there enough gas stations
in this already serviced neighborhood? Is placing an eighth gas station at this corner part of the ‘growth
managmien? plan’ that you rrotsd kt the firrdm? 1 do not belive ano:her gas station is an esthetic irnprxmncnt
over the existing lot with mature trees. How can the City view this as a the best possible location for yet another
gas station when there is an elementary school directly across the street? As a concerned parent with a
kindergartner attending Jefferson Elementary School, this additional gas station will only make traffic worse, and
getting to and from the school that much more dangerous for the children. The security of our very young
children that walk to school every day will be adversely affected. Is this truly enhancing of the “vision” that you,
and the Council, see for the City of Carlsbad?
What guarantee does the City have from ARCO that alcohol will not be sold at this mini market? According to
the meeting minutes from the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission public hearing, dated 4 September 2002,
ARCO is not bound to the exchange agreement where the Planning Commission has already granted a variance
for a car wash in lieu of alcohol sale. Does this mean that after a month of not achieving their desired profit, they
can start selling beer and wine, and continue to operate their car wash as well? Being just steps away from the
elementary school, can the City place a condition on the Conditional Use Permit (CUP), restricting the sale of
alcohol for this particular site? This is a unique site, and anything that is placed here will directly effect Jefferson
Elementary School. Special consideration should be given to safeguard our children.
ARCO AM PM Fuel Faciliry at Tamarack
page 2
During the forum you mentioned that you have been in office since 1986. I understand that the site at the corner
of Jefferson Street and Tamarack Avenue was originally a Texaco station that closed because there was a fuel tank
rupture in 1994. The City of Carlsbad Planning Department’s report to the Planning Commission, dated 31
August 2002, states that the site is still in need of abatement. Certainly, there must have been some discussion of
this contaminated site, and some proposals to abate these tanks long before 2002. With the history of
contamination on this site, and the fact that no cleanup has been done, why has there been no recommendation
by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department or the Planning Commission to undertake a full environmental
the proposed gas station not have some effect on the adjacent neighborhood and surrounding environment?
impact report to evaluate the hazards and effects on the surrounding environment and neighborhood? How can
Furthermore, how is the owner allowed to sell this property while it is still contaminated, and how could the city
have allowed this site, containing hazardous substances, to remain for this long abandoned, unattended and
unabated?
Finally, you stated during the forum that you had ‘traveled the country’ seeking out good businesses to invest in
the City of Carlsbad. Overloading the ‘Historic Barrio’ of Carisbad with gas stations, at the expense of our
lowest rated elementary school within the Carlsbad Unified system, does not seem part of a unified “vision” for
the city. With the history of the existing contamination left by Texaco, and the all of the negative impacts that
have been identified with the construction of a new ARCO station, is another gasoline facility truly the best
investment, or in our City’s best interest? I hope that you and the Council can investigate a more appropriate
commercial use, compatible with an elementary school across the street, and the surrounding residential
community.
I strongly oppose, and urge the City Council to reject this proposal of yet another fueling station at the corner of
Jefferson Street and Tamarack Avenue. I would greatly appreciate having a response in writing before the public
hearing on 5 November 2002.
Sincerelv.
cc: City of Carlsbad City Council, California Coastal Commission, City of Carlsbad Planning Department,
Carlsbad Planning Commission, Principal Jefferson Elementary School, Jefferson Elementary PTA,
Superintendent Carlsbad Unified Schools
CourComl2
ALL RECEIVED
October 22,2002
Connaught Thomas
4016 Aguila St.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re. City of Carlsbad Planning Dept. Report Case File: CUP 01-19 / V 02-03 Arc0 AM
PM Fuel Facility at Tamarack
I have recently been made aware of the city of Carlsbad’s intent to approve the opening
an Arco filling station and car wash at the comer of Jefferson St. and Tamarack. As the
mother of 3 chldren, either attending or soon-to-be-attending Jefferson Elementary, I am
concerned about the city’s choice.
Most important to consider is the safety of the 600+ students commuting daily to and
from Jefferson. The added traffic as a result of this proposed filling statiodcar wash will
make this already busy comer a very dangerous route for students. In addition, the area
between Adams St. and Tamarack is saturated with filling stations. Their locations
appear to benefit the traffic travelling on the 1-5. The addition of one more station would
only lend greater and perhaps non-essential convenience to 1-5 commuters.
As a newcomer to Carlsbad, as of July 2002, I have been so pleased to encounter a very
welcoming ci Over the summer my family enjoyed many of the events planned for
Carlsbad’s 50 Anmversary celebration: the “Fair” along Carlsbad Blvd, in July and the
Concert in the Park over the Labor Day weekend. It was clear that a great deal of
thoughtful planning had gone into these events to give a warm, “small-town’’ feel to the
population of this fast growing city. I have thus been surprised to learn of the plans or
lack of thoughtful planning for the comer of Jefferson St. and Tamarack knowing the
impression it will leave on the students and families at Jefferson. It seems there exist
other options for this comer and I believe I am not alone in requesting that more thought
be given to those options.
As more and more land is approved for new residential and commercial developments all
would appreciate a beautiful green and tree-filled space.
Thank you for you reconsideration
Very Best Regards,
Ix.
Connaugt Thomas
John & Eileen Monarez
391 9 Jefferson Street
Carlsbad, CA 92008 ALL RECEIVED
October 24,2002
City of Carlsbad Mayor’s Office
Attn: Mayor Bud Lewis &
City of Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: ARC0 AM PA4 Fuel Facility at Tamarack
City of Carlsbad Planning Department Report Case File: CUP 01-19N 02-03
Dated July 25, 2002
Dear Mayor Lewis and City Council:
We are opposed to the construction of the Arc0 AM PM gasoline station on the comer of
Tamarack Avenue and Jefferson Street for the reasons stated below.
Jefferson Elementary School’s campus consists of very young children and the majority of
these children walk to school everyday. A good majority of the children who walk to school are
accompanied by their mothers and younger siblings. We have three daughters ages 7,9 and 1 1 who
attend Jefferson Elementary School that walk to school everyday. The security of our children are
at risk. A majority of the gas station’s clientele will be from the freeway with no concern for our
children’s safety or with no connection to the school or neighborhood. This type of establishment will
attract vagrants and will make traffic worse making it much more dangerous for the children to walk
to school.
The added traffic will also increase the noise already generated by the three existing gas
stations, restaurants and freeway. The added traffic will also add to the already existing poor air
quality in the area. If approved, it would make it the fourth gas station surrounding the freeway and
our neighborhood. We believe three gas stations in our neighborhood are enough.
We are also very concerned with the sales of liquor and cigarettes at this establishment
considering that the school will be across the street from it.
The City Council should reject this proposal for a gas station at the corner of Jefferson Street
and Tamarack Avenue. I hope that the Mayor and Council can investigate a more appropriate
commercial use, compatible with an elementary school across the street, and the surrounding
residential community.
_1 Sincerely,
FI .
W " "
The City Council of Carlsbad will hold a Public Hearing to review the
ARC0 AM E" Fuel Facility at Tamarack, Case File: CUP 01 - 19/V 02-03,
on Tuesday, 5 November 2002,
at 6:OO p.m. in the Council Chambers,
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008.
Please mark your calendars and plan on attending to protest the approval of yet another gas
station in our neighborhood.
/
, I,, ,,..
City of Carlsbad Mayor’s Office
Attn. Mr. Bud Lewis and
City of Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: ARC0 Ah4 PM Fuel Facility at Tamarack
City of Carlsbad, Planning Department Report Case File: CUP 01 - 19/V 02-03
Date:7-25-02
Dear Sirs;
I am a concerned parent with children attending Jefferson Elementary School. I am opposed
to the construction of a gas station across the street from the school.
The security of our very young children that walk to school every day will be adversely
affected. Thkadditional gas station will only make traffic worse, and getting to and from the
school that much more dangerous for the children.
The City Council should reject this proposal for a gas station at the corner of Jefferson Street
and Tamarack Avenue. I hope that the Council can investigate a more appropriate
commercial use, compatible with an elementary school across the street, and the surrounding
residential community.
Sincerely,
your name:
address:
. , . . -
Attention Parents and Neighbors of Jefferson Elementary School: -
..
Re: ARCO AM PM Fuel Facility at Tamarack
City of Carlsbad, Planning Department Report Case File: CUP 01 - 19/V 02-03 Date:7-25-02
WE NEED YOUR HELP AND SUPPORT!
On 4 September 2002 the City of Carlsbad Planning,Commission unanimously approved the Atlantic
Richfield Company proposal to construct an ARCO gasoline station, "mini-mqrket" and car wash at the
corner of Jefferson Street and Tamarack Avenue, directly across the street fromJefferson Elementary School.
The final hurtle for the gas station project is approval by the Carlsbad City Co+cil. The Mayor, and four
additional board members, will approve this proposal unless parents like yourself take initiative and write a
letter protesting this development. The addition of a fourth gas station, will have a large negative impact on
the neighborhood, as well as the 720 students in attendance at Jefferson, for the following reasons:
Our Children's Safety: The security of our very young children that walk to school every day will be
adversely affected. The school is a pedestrian campus with a population of very young children, while
the gasoline station, "mini-market" and car wash target adults in vehicles. Most of the gas station
clientele will be from the freeway, with no concern for our children, or any connection to the school or
neighborhood.
Increased Traffic: This additional gas station will only make traffic worse, and getting to and from the
school that much more dangerous for the children.
Liquor and Cigarette Sales: There is no guarantee that ARCO and the City of Carlsbad will restrict
the sale of liquor and cigarettes.
Increased Noise: The gas station will be open 24 hours/7days a week, only adding to the noise already
generated by the three existing gas stations and freeway.
Air Quality: Another gas station will only compound the already poor air quality being generated by
the adjacent freeway traffic.
Neighborhood: This would make the eighth gas station within 3/4 of a mile (10 blocks), surrounding
the freeway.
0 Use of an Outdated Environmental Report: The planning report states that there will be no impact
on the surrounding environment in 14 out of 16 areas. Furthermore, the Planning Commission is using
a 1994 Environmental impact statement. Use of a more current environmental report seems justified.
Dangers: This is the type of establishment popular with vagrants.
HOW CAN YOU HELP? Write letters to the City Council of Carlsbad notifying the Council that they
should not approve this proposaI for a gasoline station acrowthe street from the Jefferson Elementary
School. The Jefferson Elementary School community should state their opposition.to this hazardous project,
adjacent to the school. A sample letter is written on the back of this page.
Write to: City of Carlsbad Mayor's Office
Attn. Mr. Bud Lewis and
City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
C.utCom9
17 September 2002
Alicia May Lafferty
815 Tamarack Avenue Carlsbad, ?A 92008
30 October 2002
California Coastal Commission
San Diego Coastal Area Office
7575 Metropolitan Drive, Suite 103
San Diego, kA 92108-4402 .
Attn: Mr. Bill Ponder
Re: Permit No. 6-02-081
Applicant: BP West Coast Productions LLC
ARC0 AM PM Fuel Facility at 810 Tamarack Avenue, Mello 11,
Carlsbad (San Diego County) (APN(s) 204-292-24)
Hearing Date: Friday, 8 November 2002
Opposed
Dear Mr. Ponder;
Thank you for speaking with me, and informing me on the position of the Coastal Commission’s
recommendation of the above referenced project. I am opposed to the Carlsbad Planning Commission’s approval
of the gas station, mini market and car wash, at the corner of Jefferson Street and Tamarack Avenue. I am
surprised to learn that the Coastal Commission’s public hearing was scheduled before the Carlsbad City Council
proposal at a public hearing (scheduled for 5 November 2002), before a Coastal Commission public hearing could
had reviewed this proposal. My understanding is that the Carlsbad City Council had to formally approve this
be scheduled. It seems that there is undue haste regarding the approval of this project, and I request that the
following items be considered for additional review by your office, before the public hearing on 8 November
2002.
After the apprehension of a burglary suspect on Tamarack Avenue on 10 October 2002, and the “lock down” at
Jefferson Elementary School, I feel that there is no better time to address the issue of neighborhood safety. I
applaud the Carlsbad police officers for their good work in apprehending the suspect, but realize that this is not
connection to our neighborhood, or concern for the welfare of our children. I urge you and the Coastal
an isolated incident, Another gas station here will surly entice additional strangers to the area that have no
Commission to reevaluate the approval of this gas station for thesafety of our neighborhood, and especially our
730 children attending Jefferson Elementary School across the street.
My understanding is that the California Coastal Commission’s sole purpose is to preserve the environmental
“quality of life” that has been undermined by businesses development through the past decades. Adding an
,2RCO at the corner of Jeffra-sor; Street and Tamxack Ayenue will hurt the “quality of life” in ihk
neighborhood, Downtown Carlsbad has at least seven existing gas stations within ’A of a mile (10 blocks),
surrounding the freeway. At what point are there enough gas stations in this neighborhood? How can the
Coastal Commission view this as the best possible location for yet another gas station when there is an
elementary school directly across the street? As a concerned parent with a kindergartner attending Jefferson
Elementary School, I feel this additional gas station will only make traffic worse, and getting to and from the
school that much more dangerous for the children. The security of our very young children that walk to school
every day will be adversely affected.
You noted in our conversation, that waste water run off at the fueling tanks and from the car wash was one of the
major concerns the Coastal Commission was reviewing regarding this proposal, The City of Carlsbad’s Planning
Department conducted a cursory environmental impact assessment in their report to the Carlsbad Planning
Commission dated 31 August 2002, which identifies only two out of sixteen environmental categories having
“potentially significant impact” to this area. I ask that the Coastal Commission have a full environmental impact
report conducted to fully evaluate the additional run off and drainage patterns that will directly affect the
neighborhood storm drainage system. As this site has never had a car wash, certainly there would be a
“potentially significant” increase in the drainage patterns, and rate and amount of surface run off that was no1 a
problem before. Is the approval of this car wash truly enhancing the water quality of this neighborhood?
ARC0 AM PM Fuel Facility at Tamarack
page 2
I understand that the site at the corner of Jefferson Street and Tamarack Avenue was originally a Texaco station
that closed because there was a fuel tank rupture in 1994. The City of Carlsbad Planning Department’s report to
the Planning Commission, dated 31 August 2002, states that the site is still in need of abatement, (enclosed find a
fax transmittal from the City of Carlsbad Engineering Department, dated 9 April 2002). Certainly, there must
have been some discussion of this contaminated site, and some proposals to abate these tanks long before 2002.
With the history of contamination on this site, and the fact that minimal cleanup has been done, why has there
been no recommendation by the Coastal Commission to undertake a full environmental impact report to
evaluate the hazards and effects on the surrounding environment and neighborhood) How can the proposed gas
station not have some effect on the adjacent neighborhood and surrounding environment?
This section of the City of Carlsbad does not need another gas station. Overloading the ‘Historic Barrio’ of
Carlsbad with gas stations, at the expense of our lowest rated elementary school within the Carlsbad Unified
School District, does not seem an adequate solution for an already over serviced neighborhood. I feel that this
multi billion dollar corporation is taking advantage of our low income neighborhood. Not all development js
good development. This is a unique site, and anything that is placed here will directly effect Jefferson Elementary
School. Special consideration should be given to safeguard our children, and our environment.
I strongly oppose, and urge the California Coastal Commission to reject this proposal of yet another fueling
station at the corner of Jefferson Street and Tamarack Avenue. Hopefully you, and the Coastal Commission, can
investigate a more appropriate commercial use, compatible with an elementary school across the street, and the
surrounding residential community. I would greatly appreciate having a response in writing before the public
hearing on 8 November 2002.
cc: City of Carlsbad City Council, City of Carlsbad Planning Department, Carlsbad Planning Commission
courcom12
/,'
FAX TRANSMITTAL
F Engineering Department
DATE: April 9, 2002
Number of pages being
transmitted:
(including transmittal)-5-
TIME SENT: 8:41 AM AM Pv
TO: Phil Shanberger c~- FROM: Jerernydle - d
COMPANY: Tait & Associates DIVISION: Engineering
PHONE NO: PHONE .(760) 602-2737
NO.
FAX NO: 760-278-1525 FAX NO: (760) 602-1052
L SUBJECT: ARC0 STATION, CUP 01-19
This serves as a response to your facsimile dated April 8, 2002. I appreciate the copy of the
document does not disguise the fact that there is still Contaminated soil onsite as summarized in recent County case summary regarding gasoline found on the site. However, this County
the "Site Acquisition Environmental Assessment." prepared by SECOR dated August 27, 2001.
After discussing the issue with the Project Pia per, and the impacts this information has on the
CEQA process, this project will include condit ? ons for soil remediation efforts to take place to
remove the contaminated soil prior to building permit or grading permit issuance.
If there are questions, please call the Project Planner Christer Westman at 760-602-4614.
1635 Faraday Avenue e Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-2720 FAX (760) 602-1052
C: Bob Wojcik, Deputy City Engineer
Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director Christer Westman, Project Planner
File
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
North County Times
Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by
the Superior Court of the County of San Diego,
State of California, for the County of San Diego,
that the notice of which the annexed is a printed
copy (set in type not smaller than nonpariel), has
been published in each regular and entire issue of
said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof
on the following dates, to-wit:
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at San Marcos, California
This 4th day of October, 2002
\\
Signature
This Space Reserved for Filing Stamp
,?-A /D - q-02
Proof of Publication of:
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
Alicia May Lafferty
815 Tamarack Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760)434-3873
11 October 2002
Cindee Hollingsworth
Secretary to the City Manager
City of Carlsbad Office of City Manager
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Case File: CUP 01 - 19/V 02-03
Arc0 AM E” Fuel Facility at Tamarack
Dear Ms. Hollingsworth,
the City Council Public Hearing date, concerning the above referenced project..
‘Thank you for meeting me on such short notice yesterday In your offlce. 1 appreciate you keeping me abreast oi
Count me in on the 5 November 2002 City Council agenda, protesting the approval of yet another gas station in
our neighborhood. As a concerned mother, with a child attending kindergarten at Jefferson Elementary School,
the addition of a fourth gas station, directly across the street from the school, will have a large negative impact on
the neighborhood
After yesterday afternoon’s apprehension of a burglary suspect on Tamarack Avenue and the “lock down” at
Jefferson Elementary School, I feel that there is no better time to address the issue of neighborhood safety.
Another gas station here will surly entice additional strangers to the area that have no connection to our
neighborhood, or concern for the welfare of our children.
I have also enclosed a letter that I have been passing out to our neighbors, with a sample letter to the Mayor’s
Office and City Council. Many of our Jefferson parents are concerned, and hopefully the letters will get the City
thinking harder about neighborhood safety. If you or anyone you know could also write to the Mayor’s Office,
that would be a great help. I have enclosed a copy of the sample letter in English and in Spanish. I hope that we
can invoke a positive change.
Thank you again for your help, and please contact me if you have any questions at 760/434-3873.
Alicia May Lafferty \ U
Attention Parents and Neighbors of Jefferson Elementary School:
Re: ARCO AM PM Fuel Facility at Tamarack
City of Carlsbad; Planning Department Report Case File: CUP 01 - 19/V 02-03 Date:7-25-02
WE NEED YOUR HELP AND SUPPORT!
On 4 September 2002 the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission unanimously approved the Atlantic
Richfield Company proposal to construct an ARCO gasoline station, “mini-market” and car wash at the
corner ,of Jefferson Street and Tamarack Avenue, directly across the street from Jefferson Elementary School,
The final hurtle for the gas station project is approval by the Carlsbad City Council. The Mayor, and four
additional board members, will approve this proposal unless parents like yourself take initiative and write a
letter protesting this development. The addition of a fourth gas station, will have a large negative impact on
the neighborhood, as well as the 720 students in attendance at Jefferson, for the following reasons:
Our Children’s Safety: The security of our very young children that walk to school every day will be
adversely affected. The school is a pedestrian campus with a population of very young children, while
the gasoline station, “mini-market” and car wash target adults in vehicles. Most of the gas station
clientele will be from the freeway, with no concern for our children, or any connection to the school or
neighborhood.
d Increased Traffic: This additional gas station will only make traffic worse, and getting to and from the
school that’ much more dangerous for the children.
Liquor and Cigarette Sales: There is no guarantee that ARCO and the City of Carlsbad will restrict
the sale of liquor and cigarettes.
Increased Noise: The gas station will be open 24 hours/7days a week, only adding to the noise already
generated by the three existing gas stations and freeway.
Air Quality: Another gas station will only compound the already poor air quality being generated by
the adjacent freeway traffic.
Neighborhood: This would make the eighth gas station within 314 of a mile (10 blocks), surrounding
the freeway. ,
Use of an Outdated Environmental Report: The planning report states that there will be no impact
on the surrounding environment in 14 out of 16 areas. Furthermore, the Planning Commission is using
a 1994 Environmental impact statement. Use of a more current environmental report seems justified.
Dangers: This is the type of establishment popular with vagrants.
HOW CAN YOU HELP? Write letters to the City Council of Carlsbad notifying the Council that they
should not approve this proposal for a gasoline station across the street from the Jefferson Elemenrary
School. The Jefferson Elementary School community should state their opposition to this hazardous project,
adjacent to the school. A sample letter is written on the back of this page.
Write to: City of Carlsbad Mayor’s Office
Attn. Mr. Bud Lewis and
City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Corrrcolnl
17 September 2002
City of Carlsbad Mayor’s Office
Attn. Mr. Bud Lewis and
City of Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: ARC0 AM I’M Fuel Facility at Tamarack
City of Carlsbad, Planning Department Report Case File: CUP 01 - 19/V 02-03
Date:7-25-02
Dear Sirs; K’
I am a concerned parent with children attending Jefferson Elementary School. I am opposed
to the construction of a gas station across the street from the school.
The security of our very young children that walk to school every day will be adversely
affected. This additional gas station will only make traffic worse, and getting to and from the
school that much more dangerous for the children.
The City Council should reject this proposal for a gas station at the corner of Jefferson Street
and Tamarack Avenue. I hope that the Council can investigate a more appropriate
commercial use, compatible with an elementary school across the street, and the surrounding
residential community.
Sincerely,
your name:
address:
.. .
Atenci6n Padres y Vecinos de Jefferson Elementaw School:
Re: ARCO AM I" Fuel Facility at Tamarack
City of Carlsbad, Planning Department Report Case File: CUP 01 - 19/V 02-03 Date: 7-25-02
iNECESCITAMOS SU AYUDA Y APOYO! El dia 4 de septiembre la Comisi6n de Planificaci6n
de la ciudad de Carisbad aprob6 la propuesta de una shper gasolinera en la esquina de ias calles
Jeffferson y la avenida Tamarack. El agregar la cuana gasolinera en el vecindario tendrh un
impacto negativo en nuestros niiios que atienden a la escuela Jefferson.
Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) ha propuesto una gasolinera, tienda y lavado de autos en enfrente de la
escuela Jefferson Elementary. La hltima aprobacion para esta gasolinera es la del ayuntamiento de la ciudad
de Carlsbad. Este proyecto representa un problema y amenaza a la poblacion de la escuela y viviendas
cercanas por las siguientes razones:
La seguridad de nuestros niiios: La seguridad de nuestros &os que caminan en frente de este
establecimiento seri afectado negativamente. La escuela es un campo peatonal con una poblacion de
nGos muy joven, mientras que la gasolinera, tienda y lavado de autos se enfoca a adultos en vehiculos.
Sobre todo la clientela de la gasolinera vendri di la autopista, sin ninguna preocupacion de que si hay
nirios o no, o si existe una escuela cercana para tener precaucion a1 manejar por ahi.
venir a la escuela para 10s nhios.
El trafico aumentara: Esta gasolinera adicional aumentara el trafico, y va hacer mas peligroso el ir y
Vendimia de Licor y Cigarros: La compa6ia ARCO esta en negociaciones con la ciudad para poder
vender licor y cigarros en la tienda.
Aumento de ruido: La gasolinera estara abierto las 24 horas del dia y aumentara el ruido mucho
durante el &a cuando estan 10s estudiantes en la escuela.
Calidad del Aire: Otra estacion de gasolina empeorara la calidad de aire que ya est6 mal a causa de estar
tan cercas de la autopista.
Vecindad: Esta gasolinera seria la octava gasolinera en menos de una milla, junto della autopista,
alrededor de nuestra vecindad.
El estudio sobre el medio ambiente vencido: El reportaje del departamento de planificacion indica
,.
que no habri impacto negativo en 14 de 16 categorias, inchyendo agua, ruido, pebgros, est&tica, etc.,
per0 este reportaje esta basado sobre un estudio de 1994 que esta vencido. Necesitan hacer otro estudio
mas corriente.
Peligros: Este tip0 de establecimiento es frecuentado por la vagancia.
$OM0 PUEDE AYUDAR USTED? Escribiendo una carta al ayuntamiento de la Ciudad de Carlsbad
expresando su oposicion a este.pehgroso proyecto. Un ejemplo de la carta se encuentra al reverso de la
pagina.
Escriba a: City of Carlsbad Mayor's Office
Attn. Mr. Bud Lewis and
City of Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Wage Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
<:,"tw,:,,'"J,\
17 sepuembre 2002
- Septiembre 2002
City of Carlsbad Mayor's Office
Am. Mr. Bud Lewis and
City of Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad. CA 92008
Re: ARC0 AM I" Fuel Facility at Tamarack
City of Carlsbad, Planning Department Report Case File: CUP 01 - 19/V 02-03
Date: 7-25-02
A quien corresponda;
Soy un padre de familia con nitios que atienden la esquela Jefferson Elementary. Estoy en contra.de
la construccion de la gasolinera cruzando la calle de la esquela.
La seguridad de nuestros nitios que caminan en frente de este establecimiento seri afectado
negativamente. Esta gasolinera adicional aumentara el trafico, y va hacer mas peligroso el ir y venir a
la escuela para 10s niiios.
El ayuntaniento debe rechazar esta propuesta para otra gasolinera en la esquina de la calle Jefferson y
la avenida Tamarack. Espero que el ayuntamiento pueda investigar un us0 mas apropiado para un
sitio tan cercas de una esquela y casas residenciales.
Sinceramente,
Su nombre:
Su dkecci6n:
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public
hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California at 6:OO p.m.
on Tuesday, November 5,2002, to consider a request for approval of a Negative Declaration and
Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a new 2,997 square foot ARCO AMPM facility
with 12 fueling stations and a 968 square foot care wash and a Variance request for reduced
setbacks at the northeast corner of Tamarack Avenue and Jefferson Street in Local Facilities
Management Zone 1 and more particularly described as:
Lot 1 of Tamarack Plaza, in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof No.
5944, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego
County on August 23, 1967.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after November 1,2002. If you have
any questions, please call Christer Westman in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4614.
If you challenge the Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permit and/or the Variance 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, Am:
City Clerk, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: CUP 01-19N 02-03
CASE NAME: ARCO AMIPM AT TAMARACK
PUBLISH: THURSDAY, OCTOBER 3,2002
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council oft he City of Carlsbad will hold a public
hearing at the Council C hambers, 1 200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO
Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a new 2,997 square foot ARCO AM/PM facility
p.m. on Tuesday, [DATE], to consider a request for approval of a Negative Declaration and
with 12 fueling stations and a 968 square foot car wash and a Variance request for reduced
setbacks at the northeast corner of Tamarack Avenue and Jefferson Street in Local Facilities
Management Zone 1 and more particularly described as:
Lot 1 of Tamarack Plaza, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on
Diego, State of California, according to map thereof No. 5944,
August 23,1967.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
questions, please call Christer Westman in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4614.
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after [DATE]. If you have a ny
If you challenge the Conditional Use Permit and/or the Variance in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public
hearing.
CASE FILE: CUP 01-19N 02-03
CASE NAME: ARCO AMIPM AT TAMARACK
PUBLISH: [DATE]
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
ARC0 AM/PM AT TAMARACK
CUP 01 -1 9N 02-03
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
CARLSBAD UNlF SCHOOL DlST CITY OF ENClNlTAS
801 PINE AVE 505 S VULCAN AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008 ENClNlTAS CA 92024
CITY OF OCEANSIDE CITY OF VISTA
300 NORTH COAST HWY PO BOX 1988
OCEANSIDE CA 92054 VISTA CA 92085
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY SD COUNTY PLANNING
STE 100 STE B
9174 SKY PARK CT 5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340 SAN DIEGO CA 92123
LAFCO AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DlST
1600 PACIFIC HWY 9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92101 SAN DIEGO CA 92123
SANDAG U.S. FISH &WILDLIFE
STE 800 2730 LOKER AVE WEST
401 B STREET CARLSBAD CA 92008
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
STANLEY D PROWSE, ESQ BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS LLC
GTF In1 c/o TAlT & ASSOC VI- I",
2385 CAMINO VlDA ROBLE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
9089 CLAIRMONT BLVD #300
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
SAAD ATTISHA CITY OF CARLSBAD
4142 ADAMS AVE PUBLIC WORKSlCOMMUNlTY
SAN DIEGO CA 92130 SERVICES
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT PROJECT PLANNER
CHRISTER WESTMAN
9/20/2002
AERY" Address Labels
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STE 100
9174 SKY PARK CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340
I.P.U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505 SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
STE 103
7575 METROPOLITAN DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402
ARC0 PRODUCTS COMPANY
4 CENTERPOINTE DR
LA PALMA CA 90623
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING
DEPT
Laser 5160@
RICHARD C & DONNA HADLEY DOROTHY D LEE
1627 E 83RD ST PO BOX 52085
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46240-2374 PHOENIX, AZ 85072-2085
DONALD 0 & SHIRLEY CARLS 'M'
SUN CITY WES, A2 9537555631
14527 W RAVENSWOOD DR
MONEDA CORP
VERNON, CA 90058-3608
2726 FRUITLAND AVE
JOHN D TAYLOR CHARLES F & MARTHA PURRINGTOl
PALOS VERDEP, CA 90275-6445
6200 VIA SUBIDA
BUENA PARK, CA 90620-2111
8194 CARNATION DR
WILLIAM & NIKOLICHA VAGENAS GSORGE H & IMELDA EISER TR VALDIVIA
316 COLORADO ST
ARCADIA, CA 91007-2635
16356 TULSA ST
GRANADA HILL, CA 91344-6813 MONTEREY PAR, CA 91755-6746
740 TAYLOR DR
ATTISHA BROTHERS INC EMILIO & SANDRA GONZALEZ GILLINGHAM SIGHTEN PARTNERS I
11321 SHADOW RANCH RD
LA MESA, CA 91941-8203 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3332
3725 HARDING ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1527
2628 WILSON ST
JAMES W CURRY STUART L & MELVA MONTGOM *M* ANTHONY P & HAROLD KINMAN
2036 LINDA LN
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-2041 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1405
2363 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3336
3725 JEFFERSON ST
BREMSETH GARY D & DEBRA FLETCHER TINA T TEPPER
520 ANCHOR WAY
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3322 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3373
3725 NAUTICAL DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3373
3745 NAUTICAL DR
VIRGINIA B SPANGENBERG MERRITT N & MARY CHAFEY JOHN T GUIDO
3750 NAUTICAL DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3374 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3374
3740 NAUTICAL DR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3374
3730 NAUTICAL DR
KEIKO PARTRIDGE DOROTHY DOUGHTY F W & KAY NIEDRICK
3725 HIBISCUS CIR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3371
3745 HIBISCUS CIR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3371 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3372
3750 HIBISCUS CIR
THEODORE R & LOUELLA UBER LARRY R MURPHY CONNIE M MCCANN
3740 HIBISCUS CIR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3372 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3372
3720 HIBISCUS CIR
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3372
3710 HIBISCUS CIR
RENATO F & TERESITA SAYOC MERRIE K MARTIN ORILA L TABBUTT
525 ANCHOR WAY
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3323 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3335
3750 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3337
3814 JEFFERSON ST
HUMBERTO & BEATRIZ GONZALEZ FABIOLA M MCDONALD
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4117
3912 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4112
804 CITRUS PL
I
RONALD E & LINDA SMITH
CARLSBAD, CH 92008-4112
812 CITRUS PL
ROBERT & OLGA FIERROS LENOLIA A EWING TODD B & TIFFNEY GUSTAFSON
820 CITRUS PL
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4112 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4112
819 CITRUS PL
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4112
811 CITRUS PL
ANTHONY & DIANE GILLROY DAVID P & LAURIE HERONEM +M* VICTORINO ZAMORA
3928 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4119
3936 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4119
827 CITRUS PL
CARLSBAD, CA 92908-4112
SCOTT A MCGERVEY LARRY & CAROL STOLL DAVID & BILLIE KOYL
830 CITRUS PL
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4112 CARLSBAD, CA 92009-8119
2607 LEVANTE ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-6510
7230 BABILONIA ST
GEORGE R & MARCELA FLINT GERICOS LANDIS CELIA R
PO BOX 4351
CARLSBAD, CA 92018-4351 ENCINITAS, CA 92024-3251
158 N COAST HIGHWAY 101
OCEANSIDE, CA 92054-7459
3423 SOUTHWOOD DR
MERRILL E & JANE BALSER SCOTT E FORBES BEVERLY B JONES
1402 HUNSAKER ST
OCEANSIDE, CA 92054-5622
4848 NORTHERLY ST
OCEANSIDE, CA 92056-2101
4140 OCEANSIDE BLVD 15938
OCEANSIDE, CA 92056-6005
ERNST H 6 PAULINE PLESSET DONALD T CARLSON HENRY CHRISTINE M <AKA LUND (
PO BOX 89
RANCHO SANTA, CA 92067-0089
3071 PENNANT WAY 4460 HUGGINS ST
SAN DIEGO, CA 92122-2238 SAN DIEGO, CA 92122-2606
DANIEL J & ERNESTINE CERDA H F L P-DOLPHIN BEACH L L C
1743 LOTUS AVE
ROBERT P & MARIE MALTINSKY
EL CENTRO, CA 92243-9505 CORONA DEL M, CA 92625-3126 SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672-4356
4539 ROXBURY RD 210 W AVENIDA SAN ANTONIO
NEAL B VOORHEES
PO BOX 2142
WESTMINSTER, CA 92684-2142
NEAL B VOORHEES FRED M & FRIDA JOHNSON
PO BOX 11329
WESTMINSTER, CA 92685-1329 FULLERTON, CA 92831-4243
2308 E AMERIGE AVE
JAMES & KIMBERLY KOYL
2823 BLACKBERRY CT
FULLERTON, CA 92835-4300
*-* 58 Printed'***
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 516”-
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4142
824 CHINQUAPIN AVE
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3332
3737 HARDING ST
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 32005-3332
3725 HARDING ST
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3332
3785 HARDING ST CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3332
3775 HARDING ST
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3332
3761 HARDING ST
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3332
3749 HARDING ST
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3334
3801 HARDING ST
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3334
3813 HARDING ST
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3334
3827 HARDING ST
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3331
3724 HARDING ST
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3331
3736 HARDING ST
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3331
3748 HARDING ST
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3331
3760 HARDING ST
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3331
3772 HARDING ST
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3331
3784 HARDING ST
CURRENT RESIDENT
3796 HARDING ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3331
CURRENT RESIDENT
CAFUSBAD, CA 92008-3333
3802 HARDING ST
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3333
3814 HARDING ST
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3333
3826 HARDING ST
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3333
3836 HARDING ST
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3336
3725 JEFFERSON ST
CURRENT RESIDENT
CAFUSBAD. CA 92008-4133
662 TAMARACK AVE
CURRENT RESIDENT
530 ANCHOR WAY
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3322
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3322
520 ANCHOR WAY
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3322
510 ANCHOR WAY
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3375
460 ANCHOR WAY
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3375
450 ANCHOR WAY
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3375
440 ANCHOR WAY
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3375
430 ANCHOR WAY
Laser 5160@
204-291-23
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3373
3715 NAUTICAL DR
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3373
3725 NAUTICAL DR CURRENT RESIDENT
3735 NAU'PICAL DR
CARLSBAD, CA 91005-3373
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3373
3745 NAUTICAL DR
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3374
3750 NAUTICAL DR
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3374
3740 NAUTICAL DR
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3374
3730 NAUTICAL DR
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3374
3720 NAUTICAL DR
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3371
3715 HIBISCUS CIR
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3371
3725 HIBISCUS CIR
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3371
3735 HIBISCUS CIR
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3371
3745 HIBISCUS CIR
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3372
3750 HIBISCUS CIR
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3372
3740 HIBISCUS CIR
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3372
3730 HIBISCUS CIR
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3372
3720 HIBISCUS CIR
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3372
3710 HIBISCUS CIR
CURRENT RESIDENT
515 ANCHOR WAY
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3323
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3323
525 ANCHOR WAY
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3323
535 ANCHOR WAY
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3335
3724 JEFFERSON ST
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3335
3736 JEFFERSON ST
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3335
3748 JEFFERSON ST
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3335
3760 JEFFERSON ST
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3335
3772 JEFFERSON ST
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3335
3784 JEFFERSON ST
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD. CA 92008-3328
844 CAROL PL
CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3337
3824 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3337
3812 JEFFERSON ST
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD. CA 92008-3337
3800 JEFFERSON ST
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4140
850 TAMARACK AVE
CURRENT RESIDENT
3912 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4117
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4112
820 CITRUS PL
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4119
3920 JEFFERSON ST
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4119
3944 JEFFERSON ST
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4112
827 CITRUS PL
Address Labels
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4140
810 TAMARACK AVE
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4112
804 CITRUS PL
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4112
819 CITRUS PL
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4119
3928 JEFFERSON ST
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4119
3952 JEFFERSON ST
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4112
830 CITRUS PL
Use template for 516:'-
CURRENT RESIDENT
3904 JEFFERSON ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-41ii
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4112
812 CITRUS PL
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4112
811 CITRUS PL
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4119
3936 JEFFERSON ST
CURRENT RESIDENT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-4109
895 TAMARACK AVE
*** 77 Printed ***
Laser 5160@
ARCO AM PM AT "ARACK GU d 01-19/V 02-03